Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very inefficient editorial handling. It took over 4 months for the Editor to realise that one of the reviewers had not provided the review and another 2 months for them to find another reviewer. Never replied to emails.
Motivation:
Excellent, timely editorial handling. Very constructive reviews from experts in the field.
Motivation:
The first round of revisions really improved the paper. This was enough to satisfy reviewer 1, but insufficient for reviewer 2. The critique of the latter was quite external. Unfortunately the reviewer sided with reviewer 2.
Motivation:
Highly professional and serious editor and reviewers. Good and useful evaluation by reviewers. I recommend publishing in the journal.
Motivation:
The whole review process was quick, relevant and objective
Motivation:
Reviews were good, but whole process took considerable time.
Motivation:
The editor had apparently not even read the paper, and provided completely irrelevant feedback (for instance, she wanted us to address issues with using a sample of participants from outside of the US, when in fact the study was on media representations and did not include participant data at all). The reviews were also not attached to the decision letter. When I emailed for confirmation, the editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said her critique was still valid (???!!). Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with with the bizarre requests made by the editor. Several weeks after the correspondence with the editor, we received the actual reviews, which were actually positive.
Motivation:
It was not bad but the comments of reviewers was not very important and we managed them quickly.Bur publication took longer than reviewing procass.
Motivation:
We received three reviews, which we addressed in a revision, and the editor said she would send the paper back to one of the original reviewers and no new reviewers, but instead sent it to one original reviewer and two new reviewers. The first round took way too long, but apparently they had issues finding reviewers. I feel the editor should have just accepted the paper after the first round, since the second round didn't contribute much--two of the three reviewers in the second round recommended acceptance, and the other new reviewer made some odd comments based on lack of understanding of the (common) statistical technique we used.
12.7 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process should be fair and transparent. And the reviewer should give his/her best time to judge the work properly with some positive comments if the research is in positive direction instead of rejection.
Motivation:
Content and editorial reviews were excellent in improving content and language. Adequate reminders were sent regarding re-submission deadline.
Motivation:
Content and editorial reviews were excellent in improving content and language. Adequate reminders were sent regarding re-submission deadlines.
Motivation:
The editor provides extensive information of the whole process.
The International Journal of Dairy Technology is included in the electronic service, “e-proofing”.
The International Journal of Dairy Technology is included in the electronic service, “e-proofing”.
Motivation:
The changes proposed by reviewers were of great importance, but the manuscript was finally accepted