Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
In my experience, the editorial team at Child Abuse & Neglect is excellent. Before submitting my manuscript, I emailed the editor several times with questions, and they responded very quickly. It was clear that they did their best to provide a decision as efficiently as possible.
As with most journals, the overall timeline largely depends on how long reviewers take. Some reviewers complete their reports within a few days, while others may need several weeks. Generally, the journal’s target deadline for reviewers seems to be around one month (this also applied to your revision time), and the editor typically issues a decision within approximately two weeks after receiving all reviewer comments.
Regarding the quality of related research, I would say this journal is an outstanding choice for work related to childhood maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect consistently publishes pioneering and influential studies in the field and often serves as a strong example of transparent methods and research design. I have followed this journal for more than ten years, and it remains one of my preferred outlets, especially given my research focus.
As with most journals, the overall timeline largely depends on how long reviewers take. Some reviewers complete their reports within a few days, while others may need several weeks. Generally, the journal’s target deadline for reviewers seems to be around one month (this also applied to your revision time), and the editor typically issues a decision within approximately two weeks after receiving all reviewer comments.
Regarding the quality of related research, I would say this journal is an outstanding choice for work related to childhood maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect consistently publishes pioneering and influential studies in the field and often serves as a strong example of transparent methods and research design. I have followed this journal for more than ten years, and it remains one of my preferred outlets, especially given my research focus.
Motivation:
APP Is a good journal, but IF is too low in recent years. I do not know why?
Motivation:
I received high-quality reviews but it took really a long time to get the paper accepted. According to paperplaza, the reviews were overdue. Specifically, it took 14.6 weeks to switch from "conditionally accepted" state to "accepted" state; in this case, I received only the AE report specifying I addressed all the (minor) comments.
Motivation:
I was impressed with the review process and our manuscript has been improved significantly. You need to incorporate everything the reviewers required.
Motivation:
The review process was remarkably efficient, with the editorial team providing prompt, professional handling. Reviewer feedback was clear, focused, and constructive. This made the revision process both smooth and productive.
Motivation:
The review process was impressively quick, and the editorial handling was efficient throughout. The reviewers provided clear and constructive feedback, objectively identifying areas for improvement while maintaining a professional tone. Their comments were concise and actionable, which significantly improved our manuscript. Overall, the experience was smooth and supportive.
Motivation:
Tough review process but yej quality was excellent.
Motivation:
Review comments were reasonable (N.B., there was a comment surrounding language and use of grammar, although it could not easily corroborated upon re-reading the manuscript). Editorial handling was excellent (e.g., editor quickly responded and apologized for a delay to the second round of reviews). Timeline was pretty reasonable compared to many other journals that are of a similar standing.
Motivation:
In general, i think the editor is very nice and it just hard for him to find the reviewer who is willing to review the paper. i found it wierd because PBR reputation is fine.
Motivation:
The revisions were on point and really helped improve the manuscript. Everything was faster that I expected.
Motivation:
Very fast turnaround and high quality reviews
Motivation:
There is a huge disagreement between the reviews: one recommended minor revisions, while two recommended rejection. In particular, two reviewers who suggested rejection demonstrated misunderstanding of our study with one reviewer not even giving any reference to support the comment.
Such disagreements should be addressed through further clarifications from the authors rather than through outright rejection."
Such disagreements should be addressed through further clarifications from the authors rather than through outright rejection."
Motivation:
The review process is excessively long, and the identification of suitable reviewers needs improvement. Disagreements among reviewers’ comments often remain unreconciled at an early stage, and one reviewer, who was particularly insistent on a comment, appeared to lack expertise in the topic.