Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
too long time getting a reply from the editor following submission and revision
Motivation:
After submitting the revised version in November 2013, we got contacted by the journal on 15-01-2014. The editor had noted that a large portion of reviewer 1's comments were excluded from the decicision letter of 31-08-2013. He attached the full comments of reviewer 1 and asked for a detailed response to these comments, as soon as possible.
We submitted the second revised version of the paper on 27-01-2014.
As such, due to the journal's mismanagement the whole proces lasted at least a few months more.
I couldn't specify this particular process in the questions above.
We submitted the second revised version of the paper on 27-01-2014.
As such, due to the journal's mismanagement the whole proces lasted at least a few months more.
I couldn't specify this particular process in the questions above.
Motivation:
Very quick and efficient review process.
Motivation:
Given the reviews (one said to accept it right away), I felt that immediate rejection was a harsh decision. It seems really difficult to be invited for an R&R for this journal.
Motivation:
Only one reviewer. The reviewer didn't like the investigated Intervention and therefore rejected the manuscript, despite no criticism on study methodology. The review did not lead to an improvement of the manuscript.
Motivation:
High quality review by 3 reviewers which improved the manuscript substantially.
39.1 weeks
41.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The impression left on me by this review process was mixed. The duration between the first submission and the first reviews was extremely long (9 months) but, once I sent the revisions, the paper was accepted two weeks after, which was a pleasant surprise. Concerning the quality of the reviews, it was also mixed : one of them was very good, bringing welcome insights, another focused only on form and had nothing of substance to contribute but was a fair assessment, while the last one read like a rant written by someone who was not familiar with the subject at hand.
Motivation:
My experience with the review process for this journal was very pleasant. I received helpful feedback in a timely manner that ultimately improved the final version of the accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
In this case, it went on well. In another manuscript, reviewing time went more than 20 weeks.
Motivation:
I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.