Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The matter of discontent is that the editor, surely, is in his right to to consider the paper to be out of the scope of his journal, but to take more than 4 months to arrive at this conclusion is toooooooo much
Motivation:
Unfair consideration by the Assistant Editor whose reasons for rejection were: (1) "the initial scrutiny of your manuscript has revealed that your manuscript has a very limited scope for our journal", which was quite surprising, because the journal has specific rubric on the issue; (2) "it has not been formatted properly according to author's guidelines", which was the height because the manuscript was prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines point by point.
Motivation:
The review process was fairly smooth. I have only few problems with one of the reviewer tha in my opinion was not a great expert in the field of the manuscript
Motivation:
Most of the reviewers' comments were useful and helped improving the quality of the accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
It was a good experience for me to submit and follow my manuscript with this journal
Motivation:
It was amazing. Before the submit my article, the proof-reading was done. I think that it was a good choice.
Motivation:
The expertise and speed with which my paper was processed by Development in Practice (DiP) were commendable
Motivation:
The comments received from the editor and the two reviewers were very objective, systematic, constructive and even inspiring. They included some editing in the wording. Also, they helped us clarify and re-write some ambiguous points and redesign tables. For few of the comments that we felt inappropriate, we sent back explanations and justifications to support our views. These justifications were accepted. Our authorship group considered this experiences indeed a rich and inspiring one!
Motivation:
Very long time for desk rejection
Motivation:
Very professional with areal willingness to improve the paper
Motivation:
Very professionnal
Motivation:
The manuscript was not considered as a high priority by the editor, so why to sent it to external reviewers.
Motivation:
Rapid review
30.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Too long
Motivation:
Fast and straightforward process. The reviewers had many insightful suggestions that really improved the paper.
Motivation:
The editor thought it was not a good fit for the journal, without much explanation.
Motivation:
Quick responce! Rejected within 3 days. Do did not have to waste time!
Motivation:
My manuscript was not found suitable for BMC Research Notes and the editorial team suggested to transfer my manuscript to Journal of Medical Case Reports. I agreed to the transfer.
Motivation:
I do not have any negative experience or any criticism to the Journal of Medical Case Reports. My overall experience was positive. The review process was slow. I am happy with the outcome. My manuscript was published.