Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
Biomedical Chromatography of Wiley ensured a very rapid publication of our paper.
Motivation:
NA
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
NA
Motivation:
The process took way too long with as an output a terse and vague reviewers' report, a standard rejection letter, and 7 months of times wasted.
Motivation:
The acceptance to online publication was fast. The editor was very supportive.
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was highly standardized with almost no communication from the editor (as you would expect at such a large journal). One reviewer did a good job, the other not but was muted by the editor during the process.
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected based on one excellent review within a week.
26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process itself was satisfactory. The only weak point was the quality of the reviewers' reports. I understand, however, that choosing the right reviewer for a given work can be a difficult task.
Motivation:
The editors took care to inform about the process, e.g. when the paper had been sent out to reviewers and the expected time frame. The editors also provided helpful comments in how to address the reviewers' comments so as to keep in line with the purposes of the journal.
Motivation:
I felt like the editor and reviewers provided me wit useable feedback that helped me to improve the accessibility of the paper to a broader audience.
Motivation:
It's efficient.
Motivation:
Lots of back and forth with the Reviewers through the Editor, which made for quick assessment of key sticking points. Presubmission systems saves a lot of time.
Motivation:
Presubmission enquiries very useful.
Motivation:
The time between submitting and getting a decision was very long. It seemed that the journal struggled to find reviewers and when feedback was given, it was a very short contribution by one reviewer.
Motivation:
Although the submitted article was not seen to fit the journal, the editor took care to give an encouraging reply.
Motivation:
Although the article was rejected, the experience was positive in that most of the reviewers (3 out of 4) took the article seriously and offered substantial constructive criticism and advice, which enabled us to improve the paper before submitting elsewhere.
Motivation:
Actually one of the reviewers contacted me and we had a discussion over email. Overall the experience was good.
Motivation:
It took almost 18 months from first submission to receive the comments of just two reviewers, and when they arrived they were not constructive comments, indeed not very helpful at all. We lost all faith in the review process with this journal to the extent we decided to withdraw the paper even though it had not been rejected.
Motivation:
The electronic system for manuscript submissions is convinient and clear. When review reports arrived, you get notification on mail. You also can be in touch with the editor/person in charge. All informaition you may need is available. I had no problem with the manuscript submission.
Motivation:
Editor comments were well-justified and included useful suggestions for the paper improvement.
Motivation:
I believe that this work should be published in Nature Physics, because the problem discussed there had general, not specific, character. Nevertheless it was rejected without reviewing. Eventually it has been accepted to APL in spite the fact that it contained criticism of the editors and reviewers of this journal who had accepted earlier an article containing incorrect results, and our comment was devoted just to this issue. The latter is said solely to point out the nobleness and fairness of the Editor of APL.