Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewers were not competent in the topic. The revision was superficial with questions already answered in text
4.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
If the paper is good the publication procedure runs very fast
Motivation:
Acta F has very detailed guidelines and if you follow them your paper will be easily accepted as long as your paper falls within the scope of the journal.
Motivation:
The paper was accepted but it took several months for it to be published, otherwise I would have given a 5. Plos NTDs has very clear guidelines for and instructions that make the process very painless.
Motivation:
We the authors had an impression that the editor is not very much interested in closing the review process, but rather, he/she was simply involved in the running theoretical discussion between us and the reviewers. I believe personally, however, that such discussions are more productive if they are carried out after publication. We had to enforce the editor that he/she must, at some time, say a closing word and decide whether he/she accepts or rejects the MS.
Motivation:
Review times were much reasonable, and reviews were quite detailed, they made sense. Also, the edition process after acceptance was very nice.
Motivation:
no comments
Motivation:
The whole process from sending to publish took about 5 months. Once it is accepted, edition is very efficient and fast and editors also answer very fast to your questions.
Motivation:
excellent
Motivation:
Published twice on the journal. First time the editors were very active and up to their job; got the reviews back quickly as well as a reasoned decision. When submitted the second paper the editors had changed. The process was considerably slower and the editors seemed to have hard time in making the final decision.
Motivation:
The referee based on its "eventual" experience did not believe the results. Only after same mails directly with the editor the manuscript was accepted.
Motivation:
Evaluations were made to improve the quality of the manuscript. A reviewer in particular has very interesting suggestions on chemometric tools used, worthy of a participant co-authored the article. We were very pleased.
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and apparently failed to communicate clearly as most of the points criticized are actually in the manuscript. Standard handling of the manuscript.
Motivation:
It is excellent journal in its impact and discipline.
Motivation:
Reviews from this journal although takes long are very constructive
Motivation:
As soon as the comments by the reviewers were addressed to then the manuscript was accepted
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and then one of the reviewers suggested rejection because of many minor issues. Comments are to the point and will help strengthen the paper.
Motivation:
All the reviews were aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The review process was fair and fast
Motivation:
The review process and publication with Elsevier was outstanding.
Motivation:
although it took some time, but the reviewers were very accurate, and the review process was smooth and justified.