Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Good process. Efficient and clear.
Motivation:
AS the paper was sent to a different group of referees some contradictions between the suggestions made by the first and second group occurred
Motivation:
the review process could be finished in a much shorter period, especially after the first review round. Also the time required from submission to first decision was a bit long.
Motivation:
In my opinion, the quality of the review process is dictated by the availability of the editors for communication. In this regard, Trends in Genetics was great. I was kept informed of the process of the manuscript as it went through the process. I had one clarifying question about a comment from a reviewer that was handled quickly. Great process
Motivation:
I felt the journal editor handled the review process as well as could be expected given that only one of the reviewers bothered to thoroughly read the article. It was a review article and one of the reviewers rejected it because it "only repeated what others had written" which was in their opinion not enough to warrant a "scientific publication". The other reviewer had excellent and insightful comments which were very helpful in producing a much higher quality manuscript. The editor (fortunately, instead of rejecting the article) indicated that a suitable balance could be found between the two highly mixed reviews.
Motivation:
Fast, relevant, inspiring and valuable comments.
Motivation:
It went smoothly. Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Overall the review process was smooth, the reviewer comments and suggestions were relevant, and most importantly, the review process was done within 3 weeks. The time taken from 1st submission to the final acceptance was less than 4 months.
Motivation:
The reviews were quick, but twice, after the reviewers submitted their reviews the first and second time around to the editor, it took the editor about 4 weeks to get back to us with a decision, despite this being only a short commentary. This was somewhat surprising.
Motivation:
The manuscript was commissioned by Editor in chief and the last version followed her helpful suggestions
Motivation:
The review process is fast, considering that the process usually takes longer for social science subjects. Both reviewers are also very thorough in their review. Many valuable comments and suggestions were given to help improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The suggestions of Editor in chief and the referees improved the manuscript
Motivation:
I was completely satisfied by the handling of the paper.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
A GOOD JOURNAL PUBLISHING REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES ENCOURAGING AND KINDLING THE SCIENTIFIC TEMPER.
Motivation:
The review process was very efficient.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Most of the review process leads to a considerable improvement and better illustration of data.
The process bring in a confidence to the authors regarding the relevance of their work to the present time
The process helps the researches to orient their work to the present line and future requirements in general and specific research required in particular.
The process bring in a confidence to the authors regarding the relevance of their work to the present time
The process helps the researches to orient their work to the present line and future requirements in general and specific research required in particular.
Motivation:
The review process was, quick, straightforward and very profesional. The manuscript was accepted in the first round, and only minor and changes were needed.