Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I had to wait more than one year for a decision after the first review round.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
Motivation:
The review process seemed fair and the reviewer comments were helpful, in general.
Motivation:
Fast process.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and fair.
Motivation:
Extremely slow processing.
I got the decision 17.9 weeks later AFTER TWO AUTHOR QUERIES.
I got the decision 17.9 weeks later AFTER TWO AUTHOR QUERIES.
Motivation:
The reviewer made brief questions as if they knew the process that we have adopted in our research, after sending a clarification by our research group, we received acceptance.
Motivation:
Very quick review. Highly recommended.
Motivation:
Good questions raised by referees;
Manuscript improved by revision process.
Criticism: revision process very long, it lasted more than 7 months
Manuscript improved by revision process.
Criticism: revision process very long, it lasted more than 7 months
Motivation:
There are a short time between accepted manuscript and on line publication
Motivation:
Clear requests by reviewers and fast editorial process.
Motivation:
Overall, the review process was timely. The reviewer comments from the first round seemed to lack concrete suggestions for improvement, although the associate editor made an effort to interpret some comments/opinions and rephrase them as suggestions for changes to the manuscript, which was appreciated. The second round of reviews, although received quickly, did not at all acknowledge the changes made to the manuscript except to say that the study findings are not significant enough to publish in the journal. Frankly, if this is the reason for rejection, I would rather the manuscript be rejected outright on the first round so I would be free to submit elsewhere.
Motivation:
The reviews were really helpful and encouraging, but the editor rejected the paper due to lack of impact.
Motivation:
Very poor process. Only one review from a reviewer with overly narrow focus. Did not give fair evaluation of overall merit. Editor did not get alternate reviews or supplement with own evaluation.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews from knowledgeable reviewers; Quick decisions by editor; No delays at any point in process. Also very quick from acceptance to proofs & online publication.
Motivation:
The review process was highly nourished by the executive editor as he suggested some changes in the paper at the first manuscript. After that it was sent to the reviewers. The reviewers were very kind to find the real bottlenecks of the research and write-up in the manuscripts and helped how to change the document. I believe it gradually teaches the researchers.
Motivation:
Very quick reviewing process. Short time between resubmitting the manuscript and editor decision.