Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The article was sent to another journal unchanged and accepted after a 3 month review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers comments were helpful for improving the quality of the manuscript. The language of the reviewers was kind.
Motivation:
Very efficient review process
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 425.6 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Many of the reviewers' comments were not significant.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed in a very short period of time.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed in a very short period of time.
Motivation:
Fast manuscript handling, editor allowed extension of the date of resubmission, as requested by me.
Motivation:
I T+think the overall process of manuscript handling by Clinical and Experimental Immunology was fast and efficient.
Motivation:
Quick editorial handling and helpful, focused reviews.
Motivation:
The reviewers were fair and constructive in their criticism. The associate editor also took considerable effort to summarize the main points of critique and suggests ways for improvement.
Motivation:
Generally, I have been glad to experience the review process of my articles with this journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers had difficulty understanding the concepts presented in the paper. As a result, the paper had to be revised and reviewed in two rounds. A number of extra calculations were added in the appendix which the authors felt were not necessary because it seems too detailed. The reviewers came with preconceptions about modeling content uniformity and seemed to be dismissive about the ability to predict it. The authors had to explain the model is great detail and perform calculations as requested by the reviewers to convince them the method is valid. Ultimately I think the quality of the research paper did improve, but it became quite lengthy due to added explanations and extra calculations.
Motivation:
The length of the first review round seemed excessively long, but all responses thereafter were dealt with in good time.
Motivation:
It seemed reviewers didn't understand the work.
Motivation:
Very positive reviewing process
Motivation:
Disappointing, but reasons clearly given.
Motivation:
It took two month for the editorial review. On the other hand, the comments by the editor and associate editor are extensive, constructive, and will help making the paper better. External reviews are not always up to the standard of the editorial reviews we got.
Motivation:
The review process by JMIR was excellent. Our manuscript was reviewed carefully, yet quickly enough, by 3 experts. Their comments helped improve our work. Despite Christmas and New Year, the following steps were handled with care.
Motivation:
Very fast turn over compared to many other journals. Received comments from only one reviewer. Somewhat cumbersome submission procedure.
Motivation:
First review round:Publish after minor revisions, Comments were encouraging and to the point.
Editorial office: Extremely efficient and fast publishing service. Just accepted manuscript without formatting was published on the web, the same day. Article was formatted over Christmas holidays (swift email exchanges) and final version was published within a week.
Editorial office: Extremely efficient and fast publishing service. Just accepted manuscript without formatting was published on the web, the same day. Article was formatted over Christmas holidays (swift email exchanges) and final version was published within a week.
Motivation:
The Review process was a bit slow, but the Reviews were excellent: Sharp and demanding, but constructive and helpful.
Motivation:
No negative experience with this process. The review was very thorough and accurate and improved the manuscript with minor changes.
Motivation:
The reviewing process of the journal was great. I was very happy to work with the journal as an author and would like to work with them in future too.
Motivation:
For publishing a paper in Chemical Reviews, we need to exhaustively review advancements in a particular field which was not the case in my paper.
Motivation:
Thats a great reviewing method if you send the revised manuscripts (with major revision) to the original reviewers.
Motivation:
Analytical Methods has a great reviewing system. I am happy to publish a paper in this journal.
Motivation:
Chiang Mai Journal of Science has a good reviewing system. However, they take a long time in online publishing of their papers.