Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very swift response and good reviewers
Motivation:
In this specific occasion, reviewing process was very fast but a little bit less accurate than usual, according to my previous experience with the same journal. However, proof editing and all associated editorial services respected a high standard.
Motivation:
Manuscript did not get a positive review because of the interest conflict. Now we have got two negative reviews both from one reviewer. We have sent letter to Editor-in-Chief to get review from other reviewer. We have several successful cases of our manuscripts published in that Journal. That is a single interpersonal conflict. We hope to get a positive review.
Motivation:
I think not providing a single reason for rejection is unacceptable. Apparently the decision was based on "inner circle referees" and made in a physical meeting, so no reports available.
Motivation:
Generaly the review process was fast. Both Reviewers had minor comments. After revised manuscript Editor-in-chief gave possitive note and accepted manuscript.
Motivation:
I fully satisfied by the review process
Motivation:
There was an original paper, new lattice gas system, completely new results with exact theory, the results were perfectly confirmed by the MC simulations. The referees really cant put forward any critical remarks.
Motivation:
I think the editor showed great interest in publishing my manuscript. The peer review process and the publication of the article were quick. I have gotten pleasure in publishing in the Zoomorphology Journal.
Motivation:
The journal is rapid in its review process, the editors are friendly and willing to help at all times.
All our concerns were resolved immediately.
It is a very serious journal
All our concerns were resolved immediately.
It is a very serious journal
Motivation:
Fast process and clear communication from the editor.
Motivation:
Very good reviewer, the editor was a little bit slow in dealing with paper
Motivation:
The first comment about some technical improvement and graphs re-arranging was very quick so it gave positive feeling, but then the review process took forever, and it took two letters to the editor to receive he first review decision which was followed by two more. Overall time till acceptance was approximately 1.5 years and additional I think 3 months time till on-line publication, which was too long. The reviews on the other side were very correct, constructive and helpful.
Motivation:
The review process was very useful and the reviewers read carefully the manuscript and their comments were very constructive.
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It takes a long time to receive the reports of the reviewers.
Motivation:
It took about a year to get this published as there were major administrative problems at the editorial office.
Motivation:
The 2 reviews were contradictory. Maybe in such cases the manuscript should go to a third reviewer rather than be rejected.
Motivation:
Generally pertinent reviews, they helped improve the paper
Motivation:
This was meant to be a contribution to a special issue, but the reviewer didn't like it. According to the reviewer there is only one valid way to measure political representation, and it isn't the one used in this paper. Being criticized for omitting information that is clearly there (figure captions, first sentence of paragraph) is never too pleasant.
Motivation:
Editors were helpful and courteous, which was very pleasing.