Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The overall process of publishing with EJN was very smooth and quite fast. The reviewer's reports were fair and properly argumented, without necessarily providing any strikingly novel insights. I found strange that the journal gave out the names of the reviewers at the end of the review process - I think the lack of anonymity might discourage reviewers from being too critical, and even discourage some from reviewing at all. It is good that the review content is public, but the names shouldn't be public. Other than this I really liked publishing in this journal.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Process was fast. Although changes suggested by the editor could have been easily adressed, the manuscript was rejected with offer to resubmit. Suggested changes mostly referred to changes to figures or adding new figures.
4.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I had a great experience with EJN. The comments made by one of the reviewers were not friendly and rather unfounded. The editor handled this with care and gave us a chance for revising the ms and dealing with the unhelpful comments.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
5.7 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Good editorial comments from the reviewers that improved the manuscript. Rapid turnaround. Very streamlined and straightforward R&R process.
10.7 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The entire review process has taken a really long time