Reviews for "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation"
Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation | 21.7 weeks |
29.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The reviews were good and the editorial management was also good. However, the initial round of reviews was excessively long- many many months, which was very difficult. The excessive duration of time for the initial review is the main motivator for the review process rating as above | |||||||
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation | 10.0 weeks |
13.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Excellent review process, and the manuscript was improved for the revisions made. This is an well-run journal. In my opinion the editor made a prudent decision in not sending back out for a 2nd round of reviews; often the editorial reflex is to simply send back out to reviewers, but that was not so in this case (to the editor's credit) |