Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
10.0 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fairly raid. Most comments were fair and the editor allowed me to argue that one or two comments should be ignored.
9.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
Motivation: I was disappointed that both the editor and one of the reviewers failed to understand a key concept addressed in the paper. Consequently their comments largely missed the point. I suspect the editor (who is an expert in this field) took the reviewer comments at face value rather than reading the paper closely himself. But at least the process did not take too long!
31.9 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
2
Accepted
Motivation: Initial review was very slow (7 months) and the quality of reviews was variable. But it was good to have 4 reviews as you are less likely to be hit by 1 or 2 "rogue reviewers"!
2.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
11.3 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The NIST report, provided by the journal, is highly relevant to the quality of the publication. It should be extended to all journals.
11.6 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I was very happy with the quality of the reviews I received. The reviewers were very knowledgeable about the topic, and pointed out (constructively!) a number of important points which I had neglected in the first submission. The final product was much improved thanks to the reviewers and editor. This was my first time submitting to this journal, but I will certainly submit again.
Immediately accepted after 6.7 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: We got proofs six months after the editorial decision.
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: High quality review
4.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
8.7 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: Comments made by reviewers were not especially relevant, nor deep. They help only moderately to improve the paper.
8.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
19.7 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
Immediately accepted after 26.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
17.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Reviewers provide rich and detailled comments at each round of revision. This really helps to improve the paper.
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: The editor quickly explained how the paper had to be modified and promptly responded to these changes. Quick and efficient review and editing process.
39.6 weeks
47.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: There were several delays in getting the initial reviews. Once we got past that, things progressed well until the article was delayed in production due to issues with the publisher.
6.3 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Among the online submission systems that I have used SAGE publishing was exceptionally fast in the revision stage, as well as in the stage of manuscript submission for the first time referee evaluation.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: I felt, it is a little long time to get manuscript number.
17.9 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Excellent reviewers. Great turn around time.
7.9 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
30.9 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected
12.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The initial review process took longer than expected. The journal requests that reviews be submitted in 3 weeks, but it took about 12 weeks to get a response. The reviewers didn't seem to have many comments of substance, but revision was requested. This would have been less irksome of the initial decision had come sooner. It is worth noting that the proofing process introduced grammatical and spelling mistakes into the paper that hadn't been present previously.
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The journal requests that reviews be completed within 3 weeks, so it's disappointing that this process took nearly 16 weeks. Typesetting/proofing introduced errors into the manuscript. The editors were flexible about the timing of publication.
14.1 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The second round took a bit too long
26.0 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
16.7 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
26.4 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Accepted
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
26.0 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
8.0 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted