Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Professional and friendly communication with editor, reviewers were high quality and looked at the manuscript throughout, good suggestions.
Motivation:
The Peer review was good. But the manuscript was with the editor since the editor could not find peer-reviewers. After the recommendation, the paper was sent out for review. After corrections the paper was finally accepted. The proofs parts was like another review which took quite some effort and time.
Motivation:
Fast review, very good revisions that really aimed to help. Reviewers had good comments so the rejection was a little bit unexpected, but we understand as it is a competetive journal. Editor argued that the corrections suggested by the referees would turn the manuscript too long for this journal, and thus they recommended transference to another journal.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 107.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The submission process was relatively straightforward, the review time was reasonable, and reviewers' comments were thoughtful and and relevant for the manuscript. It was also much appreciated that the second revision (which only included a relatively small change) was reviewed within a day and a notification of acceptance was sent out.
Motivation:
One review was rather unreasonable in asking more of everything, way beyond what the page limit would allow--not that anything was particularly bad, but nothing was enough for them. The other reviewer was more pointed with mostly relevant feedback.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and quick. We took a while to resubmit the manuscript because we had to wait for some reagents to arrive in order to carry out one of the experiments suggested in the first round of revision. Our manuscript improved a lot as a result of the reviewers' suggestions.
Motivation:
There was a delay as one reviewer could not provide the comments in time and they had to seek another reviewer. The editorial office was very professional and informed me of this situation soon after it happened. Otherwise, everything was smooth,
Motivation:
The entire review process was fast and smooth. The comments, though relatively minor, were fair and constructive. It did take the handling editor longer than expected to accept the paper given it was only minor revision, but no real complaint there, either.
Motivation:
very professional journal
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Our article had already been reviewed previously by another journal (International Journal of Comparative Sociology), so the new feedback received from Social Science Research was quite encouraging. Overall, the tone and ideas of the reviewers were constructive. The editor acted with considerable diligence and also provided some comments on the article. The article was subsequently published online fairly quickly
Motivation:
Requests by the journal were communicated actively and timely. Overall, the experience was good and the initial requests and comments made by the reviewers certainly improved the quality and accessibility of the paper. However, unfortunately, it felt as if the majority of the comments received as part of the second round rather intended to delay the publication by trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the presented approach (something that was already discussed in the first revision) than trying to improve the work.