Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Well handles, slightly slow review process but no real problems.
Motivation:
Very professional handling with great comments and low response time.
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was very vague and indicated that the paper had not been read thoroughly.
Motivation:
The review process was extremely long with reviewer comments pointing in very different directions. While some of the comments were good and did improve the quality of the paper, it cannot justify the long waiting period.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were useful but the length of time for the manuscript to be assigned reviewers, the time it took to receive the reviewer's reports after being assigned to reviewers and the length of time it took to receive responses to emails was excessive.
Motivation:
The suggestions for improvements given by the referees were very close to corrections, I wished I had already done in the first submission. Statements I had provided were addressed, and my arguments for not changing them were obviously accepted. The discussion was improved by adding a few additional descriptive data, which supported the main idea and conclusion.
Motivation:
The review process was a little bit too long. However, communication with the editor was perfect.
Motivation:
After more than 4 months I received about 8 lines of comments from each of reviewers.
Motivation:
Quick decision, however the reason for rejection is still not clear to me; they stated that my paper was "primarily exploratory".
Motivation:
The comments were all reasonable but the process has been extremely slow
Motivation:
One reviewer clearly hadn't read the manuscript. Comments were contradictory
Motivation:
We appreciated the fact that the editor commit himself in the revision process. We had to make some changes after the acceptance and the editorial office responded very kindly to our demands.
Motivation:
I am satisfied with speed of the review process. But reviewer comments were often poorly understood or not well-founded.
Motivation:
The reviewers point out only minor problems and recommended rejection. The editor added no comments, saying that "since reviewer rejected the paper, I am going to follow that recommendation." The English by both the reviewers and the editor were very non-native.
Motivation:
After responding to extensive reviews from one set of reviewers and waiting 4 months for a response, I learned that a second set of reviewers reviewed the manuscript and brought up a slew of issues that had already been discussed in the previous reviews. I withdrew the manuscript, unwilling to jump through the same hoops once again.
Motivation:
Reviewers' comments were clear and justified, the peer-review process was quite fast.
Motivation:
Although only one reviewer's comments were taken into account, these were very extensive and helpful. The process took a bit longer than a was hoping - I would prefer receiving a rejection sooner (not after two months).
Motivation:
Quite easy submission. Not super fast, but without extra efforts.