Reviews for "Computer Physics Communications"

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
Computer Physics Communications 8.7
weeks
14.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Computer Physics Communications 5.0
weeks
23.3
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: While I was initially impressed with the speed of the first review round, the second one felt like an eternity, so I contacted the editor about the status of my manuscript. I was very politely informed that they had been having trouble with the first reviewer, had attempted to muster alternative reviewers, and finally had to wait for the first reviewer to come around. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which in this case may have been a disadvantage.
Computer Physics Communications 18.7
weeks
19.3
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: It took quite a while for the first round to come to a conclusion, so I had almost forgotten about the manuscript. However, I was happy to hear that the manuscript would be accepted after some minor changes. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
Computer Physics Communications 6.0
weeks
11.8
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.