Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The first reviews had not exactly grasped the subject of my paper, whereas this was more correctly appreciated after reading the revised version and the responses to the reviewers.
Motivation:
Some methodological aspects of the study were not correct and the reviewers' suggestions were very useful
Motivation:
No additional comments. .
Motivation:
The review process was fast and I have no complaints.
Motivation:
The reviewers of this journal were quite fast and also they were expert enough to analyse the quality of my paper
Motivation:
The review process was almost excellent except sometimes I had to activate the referees and inform them about the most recent advances in the field.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was handled within 3 months which in my experience is quite fast.
Motivation:
The turn-around time was fast, the reviewers' comments were relevant and useful, and the communication with the journal editor was clear.
Motivation:
Extremely slow process. We had to write to the editor several times to ask what happened to the manuscript and why we did not hear anything after 6 of 10 months of complete silence.