Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
High quality review
Motivation:
Comments made by reviewers were not especially relevant, nor deep. They help only moderately to improve the paper.
Motivation:
Reviewers provide rich and detailled comments at each round of revision. This really helps to improve the paper.
Motivation:
The editor quickly explained how the paper had to be modified and promptly responded to these changes. Quick and efficient review and editing process.
Motivation:
There were several delays in getting the initial reviews. Once we got past that, things progressed well until the article was delayed in production due to issues with the publisher.
Motivation:
Among the online submission systems that I have used SAGE publishing was exceptionally fast in the revision stage, as well as in the stage of manuscript submission for the first time referee evaluation.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
I felt, it is a little long time to get manuscript number.
Motivation:
Excellent reviewers. Great turn around time.
Motivation:
The initial review process took longer than expected. The journal requests that reviews be submitted in 3 weeks, but it took about 12 weeks to get a response. The reviewers didn't seem to have many comments of substance, but revision was requested. This would have been less irksome of the initial decision had come sooner. It is worth noting that the proofing process introduced grammatical and spelling mistakes into the paper that hadn't been present previously.
Motivation:
The journal requests that reviews be completed within 3 weeks, so it's disappointing that this process took nearly 16 weeks. Typesetting/proofing introduced errors into the manuscript. The editors were flexible about the timing of publication.
Motivation:
The second round took a bit too long
Motivation:
First review process took to long
Motivation:
Some of the reviews were useful, some not..
Motivation:
My may concer about to this manuscript and this Journal is that I received an extra reviewer report by a new reviewer after resubmit the paper revised according to the comments of the two first reviewers. Thus, the paper was published with a big delay time. More than one year.