Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very quick reviewing process. Short time between resubmitting the manuscript and editor decision.
Motivation:
Despite the negative response, reviews and comments by the editor were detailed and thorough and the reviewing process was quite fast.
Motivation:
quick turnaround; responsive editor; useful comments made by the reviewers; very well managed journal
Motivation:
The editors and editorial staff was responsive and relatively prompt. There were a few delays in review due to the fact that it was submitted just before holiday season and probably because one of the reviewers took longer than expected.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editor and reviewers worked hard to help me work with polishing my manuscript and speeding its publication
Motivation:
The paper was sent to 3 reviewers first. The reports were largely positive. However, the editor was not happy about the quality of these reports. So he decided to send the paper to 2 more reviewers, who later had negative opinion on the topic (largely not how the topic was handled by us) of the paper. Got a rejection at last. However, the entire process was relatively fast.
Motivation:
There was some slight delay in the first review round, only because one of the reviewers didn't submit the report. However, the review report I got was of great value to improve quality of the paper. The delay in publishing the paper after getting acceptance from the editor was bit disappointing (1 year), but possibly because many papers are in the queue.
Motivation:
The review process is excellent. I had fast replay by editor. The review notes were detailed and very useful in order to improve the manuscrit.
Motivation:
one reviewer was unnecerily harsh and rejected, two others were supportive
Motivation:
The editor suggested resubmitting the article to a journal from a slightly different subject area.
Motivation:
The rejection was softened by the comment that the editor desk rejects about 80% of the submissions assigned to them.
Motivation:
Fast review process, high quality review, constructive comments and criticism of the referees
Motivation:
The overall process was quite long. It took almost 1 year for the article to be published. The reviewers comments were sensible and the suggested changes improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Perfect handling of the issue.
Motivation:
The article was sent to another journal unchanged and accepted after a 3 month review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were helpful for improving the quality of the manuscript. The language of the reviewers was kind.
Motivation:
Very efficient review process
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 425.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Many of the reviewers' comments were not significant.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed in a very short period of time.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed in a very short period of time.
Motivation:
Fast manuscript handling, editor allowed extension of the date of resubmission, as requested by me.
Motivation:
I T+think the overall process of manuscript handling by Clinical and Experimental Immunology was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Quick editorial handling and helpful, focused reviews.