Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
We had to wait 5 weeks for just only 1report from an external referee and comments (two lines) from a member of the Editorial Board. Moreover the rebuttal letter was not replied.
Motivation:
This has been the toughest but also most rewarding review process we have ever gone through (with an experience of more than 70 peer-reviewed articles together and a journal editor on board). The quality of the reviews was remarkable. We were forced to think further, broader, deeper, and again. We came out of the process exhausted, but extremly satisfied. Academic collegiality at its best.
Motivation:
The reviewers failed to recognize the fact that a new method of numerically deriving the exact probability of error for M-ary PSK in flat fading channels was proposed, besides a new channel independent precoder. The reviewers also claimed that the proposed channel independent precoder is very similar to the existing SC-OFDM. However, again the reviewers did not recognize that many of the results for the proposed channel independent precoder, were derived differently.
Motivation:
Rigorous and very good review process that improved the quality of the manuscript considerably.
Motivation:
Editor final comment about rejection is not consistent with reviewers' comments and suggestions. So, it was not clear why the paper was not accepted.
Motivation:
This is an excellent journal in its field and we are glad with the editorial process.
Motivation:
The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
Motivation:
It is a very quick, very thorough review process and I was very impressed by it all at every stage
Motivation:
my manuscript didnot undergo review
Motivation:
The review process was to.
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took a bit of time, but the feedback from all three reviewers as well as the editor was of high quality - thorough and helpful. Furthermore, the publication process after the paper was accepted was very efficient.
Motivation:
The speed and the quality of the review process was excellent.
Motivation:
First revision took a bit of time, but the reviews were fair and helpful. The manuscript was accepted rapidly after corrections were made.
Motivation:
We sent the paper to the editor for the special issue, Prof. Eva Miranda, and has been fast and serious in the whole process
Motivation:
This is a good journal as the editor will respond promptly and its genuineness on the review is convincing
Motivation:
I have published two papers with JCOMP, and in both cases I was very pleased with the overall process. The reviews were useful in pointing out ways to improve the paper, and the process was relatively fast, less than 6 months from first submission to publication. Above all, I liked the fact that the reviewers were not trying to impose their viewpoint, as in "this is how I would have done it", but mostly concerned with technical points.
Motivation:
This paper was assigned to three reviewers, and in addition it was reviewed by the associate editor as well. Some of the reviews reflected personal opinions rather factual errors. Indeed, I later realized that the published paper contains some typos in one of the formulas. I wished the reviewers were more attentive to that, rather than pushing their own philosophy. Moreover, having 3+1 reviewers means a lot of constituencies to satisfy.
Motivation:
No particular reason was given
Motivation:
The journal was extremely fast in any process and the comments from the referee were useful