Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It was a long process, but overall the feedback was positive and improved the quality of the document.
Motivation:
Significant changes needed to be done to the manuscript, but after doing this it was accepted by the reviewers with minor revision.
Motivation:
The reviews were helpful and fair, but the review process took longer than most journals.
Motivation:
Fast and efficient process. A few lines from the Editor showing that the paper was at least quickly read.
Motivation:
First review process for my paper takes only two months but the revised version was held for more than 6 months. I have found that it was happened for a special issue which made them very busy. In Overall, I like this journal.
Motivation:
The review comment showed that the paper has been investigated by the professional expert in the topic of the paper. Their constructive comments help us to enhance the paper quality greatly.
Motivation:
I feel that waiting over one year for a rejection and not getting a review is not appropriate.
Motivation:
I received three reviews. Two were very enthusiastic suggesting accepting the manuscript after minor revisions, the third was more critical, pointing to problems and missing points that were actually addressed in the manuscript.
Motivation:
The actual review process was fine but the editorial handling of our manuscript was not as I would expect it from a journal that is "commited to rapid editorial decisions and publications" as stated in Nature's peer-review policy. The decision on our second revision was "Accept after minor changes" which only included to ensure that the manuscript does fit within the guidelines. As our manuscript was already formatted according to the guidelines, we stated this in our answer letter and submitted the manuscript again without changing a single sentence in the manuscript itself. Nevertheless, the editor needed again more than two months to accept our manuscript. In addition, during the first four weeks after acceptance nothing happend at all until I asked them when we will receive our proofs. Only after this inquiry I received another e-mail stating that our manuscript had now been passed to the production which needed again roughly two months to finally publish our article. All in all, I was fairly disappointed about the manuscript handling of such a prestigious journal.
Motivation:
Initial review a bit long. Constructive comments however that substantially improved the paper.
Motivation:
Almost 4 weeks to immediate rejection, with generic rejection message (manuscript not given sufficiently high priority during the initial screening process).
Motivation:
Professional editorial process and expert reviewers. I would recommend JCD.
Motivation:
Review process on For Ecol Manage is generally fast. The first Editor assessment is very fast, less than a week. You are informed about the review steps, and have the feeling that editorial work is really fast.
Motivation:
I thought the review cycles were fairly rapid. I found the comments from the first round of reviews to be thoughtful and pertinent, and although additional experiments were required to address the reviewers' comments, those additional experiments substantially improved the manuscript. Overall, I thought the reviewing editor did an excellent job in handling this manuscript throughout the review process.
Motivation:
Fast turnaround, and the reasons for rejection were stated clearly. Although we would have preferred a different outcome, the process was painless and fair.
Motivation:
The paper was under review for almost six months and we only received the comments from one reviewer. Those were good but it was not the speedy review process we had expected. The editorial office was then super quick to make a decision.
Motivation:
The revision process was very smooth and very quick. I highly recommend this journal
Motivation:
The first review round took slightly longer than promises, otherwise perfect.
Motivation:
44 weeks for knowing that the paper is rejected!
Motivation:
I will do my best！
Motivation:
Unetical and bad practices: lack of respect for the reviewer who accepted our modified version. Here is his/her only comment:
Reviewer’s Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1.
1. The authors did well in addressing the reviewer's request for clarification and including a more recent and relevant discussion of the gaps in the literature. Further, the authors adequately addressed questions on statistical analyses and methodology.
Reviewer’s Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1.
1. The authors did well in addressing the reviewer's request for clarification and including a more recent and relevant discussion of the gaps in the literature. Further, the authors adequately addressed questions on statistical analyses and methodology.