Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process has been straightforward and there has been a very good communication with the editor.
Motivation:
The handling was responsible overall. The decision letter mentioned several comments and quoted two of them. Those were overall assessments and did not contain any specific remarks or suggestions to the authors.
Motivation:
The two reviews were very informative, and the journal decision was fully justified.
Motivation:
This was a great experience. One of the reviews suggested a relevant reference to the literature, which the authors have overlooked. The corrected proofs have been provided to the authors so that they can verify the proper implementation of the corrections. The procedure for open-access publication free of charge, based on an agreement with the institution, was clear.
Motivation:
It was an outstanding experience. One of the two reviews reported an inaccuracy overlooked by the authors. The second review suggested adding an entire section, which has increased the paper's value. The editors performed style and language editing with great accuracy and care for the authors' original message. It is the first time the authors have experienced such responsible editing. The content of the paper was a bit too complicated for a popular science journal, and all participants of the process tried their best to make it more accessible.
Motivation:
The manuscript has been rejected based on an 'expert quick opinion'. Although this is a common practice, it does not qualify for the 'excellent experience' rating.
Motivation:
The manuscript has been rejected based on an 'expert quick opinion'. Although this is a common practice, this does not qualify for the 'excellent experience' rating.
Motivation:
It was a nice experience. The review process was fast compared to the usual time for mathematical journals. The editor responded promptly to a technical question arising at some point.
Motivation:
Excellent handling by the editor and reviewers. We received two reviews - one more favourable than the other, but both suggesting resubmission. One reviewer, particularly, was highly helpful and their suggestions greatly improved the paper. The handling editor also made pertinent comments. Overall, an excellent experience.
Motivation:
Review time was adequate and the three reviewers provided good feedback; they all suggested major revisions, but were favorable to a resubmission. I believe this is important to mention because the handling editor decided to reject the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers were good and their comments/suggestion significantly improved the revised manuscript. Would be happy to consider rsc advances again.
Motivation:
Good reviews but was painfully slow
Motivation:
Three relatively short reviews, but fair. Very friendly communication with editor -- still a rejection, though.
28.4 weeks
28.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Overall, the experience was a slightly negative one. Mainly because it took way too long to get a review back.
It feels as I got the decision right after I contacted the journal to ask about delays. 2/3 accepted, but 1/3 rejected and the editor sided with this reviewer. The accept (with minor revisions) comments were OK, not too much in depth. The one that rejected gave longer motivation and more detailed comments, but felt too strongly about a few aspects.
Nevertheless, the paper was improved after the comments and was resubmited to another journal.
It feels as I got the decision right after I contacted the journal to ask about delays. 2/3 accepted, but 1/3 rejected and the editor sided with this reviewer. The accept (with minor revisions) comments were OK, not too much in depth. The one that rejected gave longer motivation and more detailed comments, but felt too strongly about a few aspects.
Nevertheless, the paper was improved after the comments and was resubmited to another journal.
Motivation:
The review quality is great. The editorial office and editors are helpful. Six reviewers are simply too much.
Motivation:
6 month process to find out from the reviews that this is not the right fit for the journal. Other feedback was constructive, but why did it take so long?
Motivation:
The review process was smooth and efficient, and the reviewers provided constructive and pertinent comments that helped strengthen the manuscript.
Motivation:
I think this journal is great! The review process took a while but I got 5 reviews!. And that helped me to improve my paper A LOT. I think they are very professional! I would advise to publish with this journal! I will in the future, if a get another great idea hahahaha
Motivation:
The review process went smoothly. My manuscript was accepted after the first round of reviews. However, the quality of the reviews was rather poor. I received 4 reviews. Two were of relatively good quality, providing some feedback on formatting and clarification of results, which helped improve the manuscript in terms of minor revisions (IEEE Access does not have revision rounds, but the minor revisions can be done before submission in the proof stage. The two other reviews were not informative, with one review indicating that the reviewer did not understand that the paper is about gas turbine engines and not industrial gas turbines.
Motivation:
I received a very extensive review. In both round 1 and round 2, the reviewers worked relatively quickly, especially considering the very lengthy paper. The editor's handling of the process was excellent at all times and provided optimal support. Although it was a very demanding and time-consuming process, I am completely satisfied with the procedures and the editorial team of the journal.
Motivation:
Smooth progress, with good reviews and a careful reading by the editor. The reviewers were hard but fair, with plenty of constructive feedback also from the editor.
Motivation:
The review process was very good, even though the first editorial decision took quite a long time (more than 10 days I think). After that, the editor was able to secure two editors in a short amount of time, and the reviews were returned in a few weeks. The reviews were of good quality by researchers working in similar topics. It was accepted with minor revisions. The revised version was accepted after a few days, suggesting it was not sent for review again. Overall, the experience was very good, would be even better if the time to the first editorial decision is shorter.
Motivation:
The manuscript was reviewed by one reviewer plus the handling editor, because he could only find one reviewer for the paper. That was the reason the review took more time than expected. The review was very good (enough details with suggestion for improvement). The second round of review was quick and the paper was accepted after that.
Motivation:
The timeline is reasonable. I learned a lot from the reviewers' comments. I believe double-blind review is the right way to go. The instructions were sometimes misleading, though.
Motivation:
I just wanted to get it published as soon as possible.
Motivation:
Quite fast procedures.
Not-bad reviews.
Not-bad reviews.
Motivation:
Although the review process was lengthy, communication with the journal's help center was smooth. The journal publishes a wide range of articles related to public health. It is a suitable venue for submitting manuscripts within the field of public health.
Motivation:
The review process at the journal was very good, and the editor kept us consistently informed about the status of the manuscript. The peer-review process also provided valuable and constructive feedback. My only observation is that, during the typesetting stage, the title and abstract of our manuscript were mistakenly swapped with those of another study. Although not a serious issue, when I pointed it out, the correction was made by simply copying and pasting, without reviewing spacing or certain elements present in the original abstract—this is particularly noticeable in the Spanish version. Nevertheless, it is a good journal.