Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
Motivation:
The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
Motivation:
Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Motivation:
Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
Motivation:
Some reviews in favor and some against it. The quality of review comment were not upto the mark as expected. It seemed that some reviewer have not even read the manuscript and just have given their review by primary quick view.
Motivation:
Very quick decision. Though the editor said that the manuscript does not meet the timeliness requirement for rapid publication in this Letters Journal.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were indicting that the reviewer have not gone through the manuscript well enough and have given his/her advise for shake of formality.
Motivation:
Very good and constructive reviews. I did further deep study and added more relevant information which I think added more value to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review comments were good and indicated that the reviewers were good in the field and have gone through the manuscript thoroughly.
Motivation:
eLife took 25 days to first decision, although they advertise 7 days with no mention of the variance. The reason they gave for the delay was that the paper "was not easy to judge". If that is the case, I would have greatly appreciated that they either state that the 7 day figure applies to papers that are "easy to judge" or make the variance in first decision times public. That could have saved me (and them) 25 valuable days.
Motivation:
Took less than two months to see the manuscript accepted. The reviews were not really helpful, but the reviewers were not aggressive, so in general the experience was smooth. One of the reviewers has insistently forced us to remove some hypothesis from the manuscript. This is not the reviewer's job, strictly speaking. Overall, the editor just proxied reviewers reports to the authors. Not a super pleasant experience, but not a headache as well.
Motivation:
Excellent reviewers and fast responses.
Motivation:
I appreciated the effort and time the reviewers put in to point out some limitations of the manuscript. This will surely be helpful in revising it and submitting it elsewhere.
Motivation:
From the two of reviewers, the first reviewer gave valuable scientific comments, it is so encouraging to extend my knowledge. I really pay my sincere thanks to first reviewer.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.
Motivation:
My paper was desk-rejected by the editor for being a poor fit, without any meaningful feedback or explanation as to why that was the case. At least they didn't take long.
Motivation:
My article was rejected after two review rounds. However, I already convinced two of my three reviewers after the first round. In addition, it is my believe that the editor could have known before sending my paper back to the last reviewer that my changes would not satisfy this reviewer and he should have decided to either accept or reject my paper immediately after I resubmitted the second time. Lastly, the quality of some of the arguments of that final revision was very low.
Motivation:
Though the review process was not exceptionally quick, and I had to follow up with the editor about 6 weeks after the submission, I thought the review process was fair, and the editors always promptly responded to my queries. I thought the editorial process was very speedy and efficient.
Motivation:
I was satisfied with the review process. The communication with the journal was effective, I was informed precisely about the progress of the review and publishing process.