Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
12.3 weeks
55.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process is delayed significantly due to one reviewer who did not revise the paper on time. Also the associate editor did not asses the reviewers results for a long time.
Motivation:
The paper was revised by 3 referees and although the comments two of them were rather positive and only one shown some major concerns paper was rejected. On the other hand editor left some possibility to accepted the paper if the changes will be performed according to comments of referees
Motivation:
The process is quite fast. They publish the paper online before printing in a month.
Motivation:
Editors tried to speed up the review process as possible but the journal does not publis the paper online before printing.
Motivation:
very professional review process with real experts in the field and a fast and fair editorial assessment. Great layout service.
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
High quality journal with expert reviewers and very experienced editorial board. Every manuscript accepted receives moreover an editorial which significantly increases the visibility of the work.
Motivation:
The review process was excellent. The editor was helpful and the reviewer's comments were understandable. The speed of the processes and reply times to further questions was very good.
Motivation:
The overall review process was relatively quick. The comments of the reviewers were, in my opinion, valid but polite.
Motivation:
Current gene therapy is a good journal.
Motivation:
Oncogene is a very good journal in regards to scientific information. The journal handles the article very sincerely without any bias and the reviewers read the article very carefully. The time from submission to acceptance is also very reasonable but takes long to put on the pubmed. I would like to communicate my articles to this journal in future too.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally good taking into account that the paper was highly specialised. I feel that one of the proposed changes was unnecessary
Motivation:
In my experience it was a really fast process with excellent reviewers
Motivation:
Two weeks was a long time to wait for a reject without review decision.
Motivation:
After publishing in several other journals, the overall experience in working with JPC-C was eye-opening. Not only were the referee reports in total, as well as their criticism relevant (something that can sadly not be expected from certain other journals), but they also arrived fast. Interaction with the editing staff was flawless and uncomplicated.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.
I can only recommend JPC-C to everyone.
Motivation:
The whole process went fast and smoothly. The comments from the reviewers were fair and constructive and helped improve the manuscript.