Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments with thoughtful, positive, and helpful for revision. The editor liked the topic of the paper and felt its findings were important. Overall it was a positive experience.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The submisson process was straighforward. The first review round was quick. The four reviewers comments were thourough and to the point although one reviewer was seemed negative on the study design and did not align with the other reviewers. This fact made the manuscript go through a second review. The editor was quick to accept the paper after additional explanations/comments from our side. All positive experience although it might seem too cumbersume to enroll four reviewers when three would be suffiecient in this case.
Motivation:
Overall positive experience