Reviews for "Food Chemistry"

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 Year
Food Chemistry 8.1
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 5 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Although the manuscript was sent to 5 reviewers, and some rejected and others accepted the paper, all reviewers did a careful analysis of the paper, suggesting good changes. The process was relatively strict, but as it resulted in the accepted paper, it was worth all the effort, corrections and re-submission.
Food Chemistry 29.4
weeks
46.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: - The process took 11 months in total, thus 7 months the first revision round and 3.5 months the second. The editor didn't replay to any email and only due to the elsevier chat was possible to obtain updates.
- The final decision arrived one week after we asked to withdraw the manuscript. Even if we officially asked to withdraw the manuscript (3.5 months after the 2nd submission) the editor didn't withdraw the submission but reject the manuscript.
- The manuscript was rejected why we didn't run a new -minimum- 2 years experiment, different in respect the current one. However, the editor gave us only 3 weeks to submit the revised version (minor revision was requested).
- The reviewer of 2nd round had the number #3, but in the 1st round we got the comments of reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. The editor never replay if the reviewer #3 was the same as reviewer #1 or #2. Therefor we assume that was one of the first two. It could be that was a third reviewer that we never got his/her comments.
Food Chemistry 29.4
weeks
46.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: Overall duration of the process unacceptable. Quality of the process highly debatable.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.
Food Chemistry 0.0
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Food Chemistry n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: I don't think that somebody actually read our manuscript before rejecting it as we received a manuscript number (which usually means that an editor was assigned) just 2 minutes before the rejection. In addition, 3 weeks for an immediate rejection is simply too long.
Food Chemistry 12.1
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Manuscript was handled in a very efficient and quick way. Input from one of the reviewers was very poor, basically just recommending the addition of 5 own papers to reference list. This type of reviewing should be excluded and the reviewer cautioned. Input from the other reviewer was detailed, useful and constructive.
Food Chemistry 21.6
weeks
22.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Food Chemistry n/a n/a 69.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: They took a couple of moths to decide that did not fit the scope of the journal.
Food Chemistry 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Food Chemistry 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 5 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015