Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The reviewers were fair and constructive in their criticism. The associate editor also took considerable effort to summarize the main points of critique and suggests ways for improvement.
Motivation:
Generally, I have been glad to experience the review process of my articles with this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers had difficulty understanding the concepts presented in the paper. As a result, the paper had to be revised and reviewed in two rounds. A number of extra calculations were added in the appendix which the authors felt were not necessary because it seems too detailed. The reviewers came with preconceptions about modeling content uniformity and seemed to be dismissive about the ability to predict it. The authors had to explain the model is great detail and perform calculations as requested by the reviewers to convince them the method is valid. Ultimately I think the quality of the research paper did improve, but it became quite lengthy due to added explanations and extra calculations.
Motivation:
The length of the first review round seemed excessively long, but all responses thereafter were dealt with in good time.
Motivation:
It seemed reviewers didn't understand the work.
Motivation:
Very positive reviewing process
Motivation:
Disappointing, but reasons clearly given.