Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.
Motivation:
Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
Motivation:
The anonymous peer reviewers selected by this journal are professionals who are familiar with my research topics.
Motivation:
Very fast review procedure
Motivation:
Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
Motivation:
We acquired constructive comments from three reviewers and the process was fast.
Motivation:
-the revision duration was correct
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
-the reviewers arguments to reject the paper were acceptable
Motivation:
The process was very effective. However, we would have appreciated a little longer time to make the suggested corrections (we had 4 weeks).
Motivation:
The review took five month
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
The reviews were not good:
- the first reviewer contested the technique of recording (the technique was classic, the reviewer just did not like it)
- the second reviewver major comments were about syntax mistakes
Motivation:
Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Motivation:
Long review time due to changes in the editorial board. Needed to contact the editor after which the decision was received in two weeks. Communication with the editor was 5/5.
Motivation:
Some reviews in favor and some against it. The quality of review comment were not upto the mark as expected. It seemed that some reviewer have not even read the manuscript and just have given their review by primary quick view.
Motivation:
Very quick decision. Though the editor said that the manuscript does not meet the timeliness requirement for rapid publication in this Letters Journal.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were indicting that the reviewer have not gone through the manuscript well enough and have given his/her advise for shake of formality.
Motivation:
Very good and constructive reviews. I did further deep study and added more relevant information which I think added more value to the manuscript.
Motivation:
Review comments were good and indicated that the reviewers were good in the field and have gone through the manuscript thoroughly.
Motivation:
eLife took 25 days to first decision, although they advertise 7 days with no mention of the variance. The reason they gave for the delay was that the paper "was not easy to judge". If that is the case, I would have greatly appreciated that they either state that the 7 day figure applies to papers that are "easy to judge" or make the variance in first decision times public. That could have saved me (and them) 25 valuable days.
Motivation:
Took less than two months to see the manuscript accepted. The reviews were not really helpful, but the reviewers were not aggressive, so in general the experience was smooth. One of the reviewers has insistently forced us to remove some hypothesis from the manuscript. This is not the reviewer's job, strictly speaking. Overall, the editor just proxied reviewers reports to the authors. Not a super pleasant experience, but not a headache as well.
Motivation:
Excellent reviewers and fast responses.