Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Reviews were timely and very useful. Editorial decision-making was efficient and clear. I recommend this journal for a positive experience of publication process. .
Motivation:
overall handling was good. the quality of the reviews was average.
Motivation:
The review process was very speedy. Still, the reports clearly showed that both the editorial staff and the the evaluators have gone over the text carefully. Feedback was very constructive, with clear reasons for rejection and recommendations for improvement.
Motivation:
The review process is extremly fast. Everything is managed via email instead of a publication system, which I found very comfortable. Very nice is also that the corresponding author gets via email notice when the reviewers are informed about the paper.
34.7 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I do not have any complaining about the speed of the journal. However I am not able to apreciate the reasons for the rejection. Journals, like Plos One, claim that they are not interested in percieved impact. But in my expreience they do, (somewhere in the deep). My manuscript was about genome-wide identification of an enzyme family in a group of single-celled eukaryotes. Editor thinks that blasting for the presence or absence of genes from publicly avaible data is not a primary scientific research (a criterion for publication with PlosONE). But I can show countless number of these kind of studies. Even one published in Plos One. He also found my phylogenetic analyses limited. This sounds to me that editor seeks an impact. Therefore, Plos One and that kind of journals should stop involving the name of Academic Editor in the accepted manuscript. Some "arrogant" editors do not want to be part of a nonimpactful paper. That is my theory.
Motivation:
The reason for the gap between initial submission and external review was that the manuscript was under "Editorial Board Consideration" for nearly three months. Several (4) emails to the editorial office during this time got the simple reply that it was not possible to find an editor because they were all in the field or on holidays (literally). We send the fifth email as a letter of formal complaint to the Editor-In-Chief. We had an editor assigned within a week and the paper was sent immediately after for external review (only to 1 reviewer). I as leading author am not bothered with the review itself but with the rather poor handling of the manuscript by the editorial office.
Motivation:
We doubt that this manuscript was carefully reviewed because in only one review that we have received, only a few minor changes that could be easily corrected were suggested. Also, by his comments the reviewer showed a lack of understanding and knowing about the topic of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor did not write any valid explanation of the rejection although the reviewer commented that results were interesting, and certainly did not suggest rejection of the manuscript. After so long a period of waiting we consider this kind of treatment to be unfair at least.
Motivation:
Manuscript submission was relatively simple and we received the first round of reviews in just over 2 months. The reviews were constructive and fair, and the manuscript was improved in quality after resubmission. The handling of the manuscript seemed prompt, fair, and diligent. Overall, I had a positive experience with ERL.
Motivation:
This journal has a very swift editorial policy and manuscripts are rapidly sent out for review, and editorial decisions are taken fast. Still, he editors carefully study the review reports and do not only automatically forward them to the authors: This is very helpful and shows a high quality of the editorial work at Powder Technology. I suggest that the other Elsevier journals would adopt this policy, because many of them would have a lot to learn from it.
Motivation:
They had a hard time finding a handling editor. But once they found one, she dealt with it amazingly fast, within 2 weeks.
Motivation:
I wish I wanted an opinion from more than one review. My general impression of this journal is that the editor(s) rely too much on reviewers' comments, not making their own decisions.
Motivation:
The review process was OK but the journal response on the reviews was slow (manuscript hanging more than one month at the editorial office for each decision) and editors started their own review process after the real reviewers had done their job, focusing on technical matters. The associate editor also made a mistake and incorrectly studied our initial submission after the first revision round, and commented matters that were not relevant to the revised paper. Pointing out this mistake was obviously something we should never have done as the journal and is action is flawless. Eventually, the paper was however accepted.
Motivation:
On a positive side - the feedback was quite quick. On a negative side - I had a feeling that the editor didn't read the text carefully.
Motivation:
Disappointing to receive a desk rejection more than 12 weeks after submission.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and fast. The suggestions by the Reviewers was of high quality.
Motivation:
The decision letter was written in a more personal tone instead of objective criticism.
Motivation:
The interactive review system of Frontiers has benefits and drawbacks. It is nice to have the feeling to be more in discussion with the Reviewers as scientif colleagues than as judges. However, the interactive review system also seems to prolong the process. In addition, it is really annoying that each answer has to be placed in a separate box, meaning that you have to copy and paste the answers prepared in one file on your computer one after another.
7.4 weeks
7.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The Rieviewers and the Editor had reasonable concerns and stated them objectively.
Motivation:
Great experience. Reviews were thorough, informative and fair. Encouragement along the way from the Editor too. A really great experience. JEMS is an exemplar of how the peer review system should work.
Motivation:
As on previous occassions, Plos One failed to find a willing editor within a reasonable time frame. Hence, we decided to withdraw and has since published it elsewhere.
Motivation:
The subject editor had problems finding more than one willing referee, so acted him/her-self as referee. Took some time though.
Motivation:
Editorial reject. The article was deemed too specific and not contributing to a wide audience.
Motivation:
The technical editor did a great job in replying to all of our comments and queries.
From the two peer reviewers, only one of them provided comments and suggestions that required structural and valid changes to the manuscript. The second reviewers praised and encouraged the work without any recommendations for modifications or change. The Editor-in-chief also responds to any query or concern if requested to.
The overall experience of publishing this manuscript with the assistance of the editorial board of the JECP, was an inspiring, learning and pleasant one!
From the two peer reviewers, only one of them provided comments and suggestions that required structural and valid changes to the manuscript. The second reviewers praised and encouraged the work without any recommendations for modifications or change. The Editor-in-chief also responds to any query or concern if requested to.
The overall experience of publishing this manuscript with the assistance of the editorial board of the JECP, was an inspiring, learning and pleasant one!
Motivation:
This journal is a good scientific one for publishing.