Reviews for "BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making"

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
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 31.1
weeks
48.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back
Motivation: Horrible experience with BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
After almost one year of very long (and useless) wait for poor reviews, we withdrew the article and submit it somewhere else.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 7.7
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was good. The two reports from the reviewers were actually useful. The editor provided some useful feedback, and everything went on quite smoothly.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Drawn back before first editorial decision after 197 days Drawn back
Motivation: I sent reminders to the editor after 3 months, and kept getting emails that either our paper was waiting for reviews which were due within 2 weeks or that they were still looking for a reviewer. After 6.5 months I gave up and withdrew the paper.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 20.3
weeks
35.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The entire process took 10.5 months, well beyond the "fast turnaround" and decision time that the journal advertises. We did extensive review in response to the first and second reviews. Mostly in response to a single reviewer. On the second review, one reviewer indicated that the revisions were acceptable, but the second reviewer raised a whole set of new criticisms (different from the first review).

The final decision was that the manuscript was not interesting for the general audience of the journal, a critique raised on the first and second reviews. We were extremely disappointed that this decision was not made by the editor after 5 months or 8 months, the first and second reviews, by the editor. To ask the authors to do more work, and then have the manuscript rejected, not based on the responses to the critiques but on suitability and interest, was very frustrating.