Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I felt the journal editor handled the review process as well as could be expected given that only one of the reviewers bothered to thoroughly read the article. It was a review article and one of the reviewers rejected it because it "only repeated what others had written" which was in their opinion not enough to warrant a "scientific publication". The other reviewer had excellent and insightful comments which were very helpful in producing a much higher quality manuscript. The editor (fortunately, instead of rejecting the article) indicated that a suitable balance could be found between the two highly mixed reviews.
Motivation:
Fast, relevant, inspiring and valuable comments.
Motivation:
It went smoothly. Fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Overall the review process was smooth, the reviewer comments and suggestions were relevant, and most importantly, the review process was done within 3 weeks. The time taken from 1st submission to the final acceptance was less than 4 months.
Motivation:
The reviews were quick, but twice, after the reviewers submitted their reviews the first and second time around to the editor, it took the editor about 4 weeks to get back to us with a decision, despite this being only a short commentary. This was somewhat surprising.
Motivation:
The manuscript was commissioned by Editor in chief and the last version followed her helpful suggestions
Motivation:
The review process is fast, considering that the process usually takes longer for social science subjects. Both reviewers are also very thorough in their review. Many valuable comments and suggestions were given to help improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The suggestions of Editor in chief and the referees improved the manuscript
Motivation:
I was completely satisfied by the handling of the paper.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
A GOOD JOURNAL PUBLISHING REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES ENCOURAGING AND KINDLING THE SCIENTIFIC TEMPER.
Motivation:
The review process was very efficient.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Most of the review process leads to a considerable improvement and better illustration of data.
The process bring in a confidence to the authors regarding the relevance of their work to the present time
The process helps the researches to orient their work to the present line and future requirements in general and specific research required in particular.
The process bring in a confidence to the authors regarding the relevance of their work to the present time
The process helps the researches to orient their work to the present line and future requirements in general and specific research required in particular.
Motivation:
The review process was, quick, straightforward and very profesional. The manuscript was accepted in the first round, and only minor and changes were needed.
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.