Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The process was quick to be a high-impact journal and demand. Corrections were positive friendly language. Trabjo visibility was very hight, around 1700 views in a year.
Motivation:
The selected editor waited more than 50 days before even accepting to be editor. No specific comments were made on the papers
Motivation:
good process of review
Motivation:
I was impressed by the speedy response from the editorial board in terms of acknowledging receipt of my submitted paper, and even more by the positive response from the Editor in chief himself in accepting my article without further editing, except for basic formatting, over a very short duration time. Very inspiring to authors like myself.
Motivation:
Excellent review with constructive helpful suggestions to improve article, and speed of review.
Motivation:
The first reviewer accepted the manuscript as it was written. The second reviewer requested the re-arrangement of manuscript sections for better thought flow and reference list update. The requests were justified.
Motivation:
a very good journal
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
We were very satisfied with this journal.
Especially, editor and reviewers give us to very helpful comments to improve manuscripts.
Also, we were pleased with fast review process.
Then, we recommend to submit this journal.
Especially, editor and reviewers give us to very helpful comments to improve manuscripts.
Also, we were pleased with fast review process.
Then, we recommend to submit this journal.
Motivation:
Constructive criticism and a thorough review of my work by this journal enabled a well planned revision thus facilitating publication of this research.
Motivation:
Good and sensible reviewer comments and from the editor as well. Helped to improve the paper. Also the reviewing process was quite fast.
Motivation:
Review process took very long time.
Motivation:
This was faster than previous experiences with JEMS, and we were given a chance to revise the paper despite one rather critical reviewer. The work we put into the revision paid out, though.
Motivation:
Theoretical papers are sent to referees who are experts in experiment and vice versa. Referee reports are not logical with respect to the content of the manuscript and mostly motivated by the own ideas of the referees.
Motivation:
Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviews were very short (97 words together), very general (e.g. #1: "It is very descriptive and low in interest for the audience"; #2: "There is little scientific aspect in the paper") and not supported with any clear reference to the text. If I would not have been a seasoned author, for example a PhD candidate, I would have been disincentivized.
Motivation:
The Editor suggested, in a relevant way, a different kind of journal.
Motivation:
Reviewers brought out the salient information and critique that made the paper stand out
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was very good. The review process has improved my paper a lot. However, in may opinion, the review process could be a little bit faster.
Motivation:
Sometime review comments are not improving quality of paper and some questions are really ridiculous
Immediately accepted after 30.9 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
The review process of this journal is quiet fast.
Motivation:
N/A