Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This journal is very meticulous. In addition to doing a thorough job of vetting the scientific content of my article, the editor and his staff made sure that all journal requirements were adhered to completely before accepting manuscripts for publication. And they went about the process very professionally.
Motivation:
One of the reviewer would have liked a different paper, but the editor helped us navigate the challenge.
Motivation:
Nice review process
Motivation:
I was very happy with the very fast and well-organized publication process after the editor's final decision (about 1 month) and the great editing support!
Motivation:
The reviews were from experts in the subfield, came in swiftly and were quite helpful. After publication, the journal manager shared our paper with many of the people whose research we cited, thus drawing attention to our work. We were happy with this exposure, as we had picked Open Linguistics specifically because its open access nature.
Motivation:
Good, helpful reviews. Editorial decision was 'accept w/ minor revisions', so in between the outright accept and revise & resubmit choices SciRev offers. It took a long time for the paper to come out post-acceptance.
Motivation:
Review process well managed by Editors
Motivation:
Due to the quality of our manuscript, JACS reviewed, accepted, and published it within a month.
Motivation:
Quick decision, helpful editing, easy transition from ms to publication. Always a pleasure to work with the journal German History.
Motivation:
Fast and interesting review.
Motivation:
Blind review is preferred
Motivation:
It took several emails to the editor to get the original reviews. Eight months is way too long to wait for reviews.
Motivation:
Took a long time to go through the review-process with at time confusing requests by various reviewers. I guess this was my last submission to this journal.
Motivation:
Results of my research related to the contamination of heavy metals in the environment (research area - chemistry and geochemistry) has published in international peer-reviewed journals (20 papers), four chapters in monographs international character, and reported on over 30 international and national scientific conferences.
Motivation:
I have decided to share this experience because I have never encountered anything like this before: a journal claiming they could not find an editor after more than two months! And not in some obscure topic (plant biology). This is coming from a journal boasting “speed to publication”… Ridiculous!
Motivation:
The journal provided two superficial reviews below any standard. The first one was only a paragraph long. However, it contained one pertinent comment which wouldn't be possible to notice without carefully reading the manuscript, so my guess is that the reviewer did actually read the paper but didn't bother to comment. The second review was a non-review: it didn't contain a single word (empty text). Not a serious journal.
5.4 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
High quality and profound reviews by knowledgeable experts. Their very careful comments took some time to process but they were all correct and they have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. The editor was quite professional and quick with notifications and replies to my queries.
21.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The overall rating of the review process is very good due to the duration of the review and to the selection of the Reviewers, that showed expertise in the fieldof my paper.
Motivation:
No
Motivation:
Each of the 'reviews' was one short paragraph saying that it didn't seem to add sufficiently new information to the understanding of the melatonin rhythms of delayed sleep phase disorder. In our opinion and that of Journal of Biological Rhythms these reviewers' opinions were unsubstantiated and incorrect.