Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was not terribly long but there was no feedback at all on my article. I received no comments from the reviewer, simply an email from the editor saying, "I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum."
30.1 weeks
52.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviews were objective and the review process and editorial handling was extremely fast.
Motivation:
I recommend to avoid this journal. It took about a half year to go through the first round. I am glad that one reviewer's comments are helpful.
Motivation:
After a positive answer on our presubmission enquiry, surprisingly, the paper was rejected by the editorial board member who deemed it "too specialized".
Motivation:
The manuscript was read and carefully investigated. The overall handling was satisfactory and I think this is a good journal.
Motivation:
I think my manuscript was not read at all. They rejected it because I had no published paper in that field. May be they are right because they don't want to waiste their reviewer's times. But, I think these journals, must publish "invited papers" if they want to take the author's resume into account.
Motivation:
It took more than a year to get reports from reviewers, one of which was only of few lines; When I talked to some colleagues about it, they laughed and said this is not unusual from this journal. I strongly advice against submitting a paper to it.
Motivation:
Pretty good experience overall.
Motivation:
I feel that we thoroughly and adequately addressed all reviewer concerns. After our resubmission the manuscript was rejected by the editorial board for reasons that were not initially indicated as problematic (e.g., the sample size).
Motivation:
Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
Motivation:
Editorial decision seemed out of line with recommendations of reviewers.
Motivation:
Decent duration of the review process. Two out three reviews of good quality, which certainly improved the manuscript, although the paper was rejected.
Motivation:
The paper made a pretty provocative claim, so I understand that the reviewers did not quite like it (although one reviewer was quite sympathetic). I wonder, though, why it would take more than 6 months to get reviewers for a double-spaced 12 page paper.
Motivation:
Everything was excellent, except review which arrived late.
Motivation:
The review was returned in one day, with a rejection. However, a year later, another paper in the same area (and equally interesting results) was published.
Motivation:
One review consisted of only one negative sentence. This reviewer did not comment on a conceptual advance or the scientific quality but only on significance to the field although the journal explicitly stated in their policy that only scientific quality and not significance is rated. Both rounds of review were in good time but a quite negative experience was the quality check with unspecific and unjustified comments with a considerable loss of time and the requirement to upload each part of the manuscript again and again.
Motivation:
The reviews were good, except for one reviewer who took too long.
Motivation:
One review was thorough and helpful.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
Motivation:
This was my first and very positive experience with this journal. The reviewer comments were helpful and helped me to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
All of my correspondence with the editor was courteous and professional. Although I did not receive the reviews as the reviewers wrote them, the editor provided a brief but specific summary combining their comments. I was able to use this feedback to improve the article to send it elsewhere.