Reviews for "Biomaterials"
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 |
Biomaterials | n/a | n/a | 26.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Unfortunately, the longest part of the whole process was the manuscript not being assigned a manuscript number for three weeks. We had to chase up the editorial office for the manuscript to be assigned a number. | |||||||
Biomaterials | n/a | n/a | 46.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Took 1.5 months for a direct rejection. Sad. Journal says 2018 review time was 3-4 weeks. Laughable | |||||||
Biomaterials | n/a | n/a | 15.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The time taken to arrive at a rejection by the editor was inappropriately long (2 weeks). | |||||||
Biomaterials | n/a | n/a | 9.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Biomaterials | 13.0 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Motivation: Reviewer comments were pertinent, well-documented and demonstrated good knowledge of the field. | |||||||
Biomaterials | n/a | n/a | 5.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: I think the decision was a bit too drastic. Perhaps a proper review process would have help to improve the manuscript and its content. The positive point is that the decision took only a few days. | |||||||
Biomaterials | 4.0 weeks |
5.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |