Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Professional and competent handling by the editors, fair and helpful reviewers.
Motivation:
The fastest review process I've ever seen, and not for the first time with this journal. Fair, fast, and very helpful. The submission system is also highly author-friendly.
Motivation:
Fast, friendly, and professional handling by the editor; helpful, polite, and professional reviewer comments
Motivation:
The first round of reviews was fair and mostly constructive, the last round however was based on a reviewer who missed the point and required unnecessary work. The editorial team, otherwise very helpful and fair, should have stepped in at that point. In summary however, the manuscript was handled mostly fair and did improve by the review process.
Motivation:
a bit slow, but thorough, fair reviews
Motivation:
The reviews were helpful and suggested several important improvements to our paper. The review process was a bit slow for a 'letters' journal (>3 months) but not too bad. After submitting revisions, a decision was made quickly.
Motivation:
The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
Motivation:
The paper was judged to preliminary by the journal and was rejected in reasonable delay.
Motivation:
One reviewer did not want our paper to be accepted and the editor did not send our manuscript to another reviewer. Thus the paper was rejected after months of revision.
Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
Each time the paper is submites, there is a the quality check that take two weeks before the paper is send to reviewers.
Motivation:
The reviewers have done valuable comments that strengthened the paper.
Motivation:
I sent my article as a letter to the editor, so it does not need an external reading
Motivation:
It is obvious the editor does not have enough knowledge in this area! last year I have published a lesser work of mine in this journal, and now I have received this comment.
Motivation:
The time it took was exceptionally long (24 weeks), and resulted in only 1 reviewer report. The editor apologized for the long waiting time, but it still was a major drawback for this paper.
Motivation:
Although the manuscript concerned a protocol article (which was clearly indicated int he submission process), the review process handled it as if it were a regular article manuscript. we therefore wrote a rebuttal, which was successful, but altogether it took 10 months from initial submission until acceptance, without delay from our side. In addition to this long wait, the Journal was not able to find appropriate reviewers from the mental health field.
Motivation:
Everything was clear, from the editor instructions to the referee comments.
Motivation:
Hard to beat insufficient enthusiasm. The reviewers suggested ways to take the manuscript into different directions, but nothing wrong with it.