Reviews for "Frontiers in Psychology"

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
Frontiers in Psychology 2.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: The experience was great. The editor responded very quickly, the reviewers' suggestions are constructive, and the quality of the article really improved after the revision. I think the quality of the article has been improved.
Frontiers in Psychology Immediately accepted after 0.6 weeks Accepted (im.) 2021
Frontiers in Psychology 17.9
weeks
21.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2022
Frontiers in Psychology 9.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2021
Frontiers in Psychology 4.7
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Overall the review process was very smooth. A few things could be improved, e.g. the requirement to put figures at the end of the manuscript (without the captions) instead of inside the body.
Frontiers in Psychology 7.9
weeks
18.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: In the first round one reviewer provided thoughtful and useful comments, the review of another reviewer was written in a rather rude language, however, we addressed all the comments as well. There were contradictions between the two reviews but the editor made little effort to reconcile them. In the next round the second reviewer was not satisfied with the paper, but he/she did not specify what exactly was wrong. We asked the editor to pay attention to this situation. The second reviewer has withdrawn from the review process, another reviewer was invited. This prolonged the review process drastically, especially because the third reviewer was reviewing an older version of the submission. The third reviewer suggested minor changes which also consisted of inclusion of citations irrelevant to the subject.

The main drawback is that the editor almost does not participate in the review process and does not follow the discussion. Everything depends on whether the reviewers endorse the publication, and the quality of reviews is not monitored.
Frontiers in Psychology 18.7
weeks
19.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The first review round took relatively long, likely as the editor was waiting for a third reviewer. The revise and resubmit came the day I wrote the editor to inquire regarding the expected timeline of the reviews. I really appreciated the interactive forum, as it allowed for more communication with the reviewers. After the first reviews the process was quick and smooth.
Frontiers in Psychology 11.3
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Frontiers in Psychology 26.9
weeks
26.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: After 27 weeks, we received a very positive review and a very negative one. The two reviews were clearly contradictory on several points. Moreover, the negative one was full of factual errors. The editor made no effort to reconcile the contradictions between the two reviews (e.g., by asking us to refute the critiques, by inviting an additional reviewer, or by evaluating the paper the editor himself).
Frontiers in Psychology 5.9
weeks
37.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Frontiers in Psychology 13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Initially it took some time to find reviewers, as the paper was not sent for review for longer than a month. However, communication with the editor during this time was excellent and they were receptive to new reviewer suggestions and generally kept us updated.

The reviews, when they eventually came in, were of high quality, and helped improve the paper. I liked the interactive forum too, I'd like for more publishers to consider this model.

Overall a good experience.

Frontiers in Psychology 52.6
weeks
61.3
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2019
Motivation: The Manuscript is under review since one year. I sent further reviewer suggestions but the journal is not able to handle it.
Frontiers in Psychology 4.3
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Frontiers in Psychology 7.4
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Very fast review system. Very good reviews and very nice online interactive review forum.
Frontiers in Psychology 4.7
weeks
5.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Editorial processing was extremely fast. It took 3 days from submission to the assignment of associate editor, and 30 days to get the 1st round of rereview. Reviews endorsed the publication of my manuscript 8 days after a moderate revision, and in the same day, the status changed from provisional acceptance to abstract online. The user experience of the submitting system and review forum was also excellent.
Frontiers in Psychology 9.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: A specific problem in the Frontiers review system: At any time of the review process an (anonymous) reviewer has the right to withdraw from the process. If the reviewer does not withdraw, his or her name will be published if the manuscript gets published. The names of reviewers withdrawing will not be published.

In our case the reviewer withdrew after asking for major changes in the manuscript, but still unsatisfied - "not convinced" - by the results we had submitted. The manuscript was finally accepted, but all the major changes were kept regardless the unsatisfied and unfruitful "discussion" process between the reviewer and the authors. In our view many of the changes in the manuscript were needless.
It is difficult for reviewers to prohibit manuscripts they don't like, but using the above mentioned procedure they at least can urge the authors to include citations of minor relevance and to add arguments that are not constructive.
Frontiers in Psychology 4.1
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Very fast editorial processing. The editor was very competent and helpful.
Frontiers in Psychology 3.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Frontiers in Psychology 3.3
weeks
3.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The reviews were objective and the review process and editorial handling was extremely fast.
Frontiers in Psychology 11.1
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The interactive review system of Frontiers has benefits and drawbacks. It is nice to have the feeling to be more in discussion with the Reviewers as scientif colleagues than as judges. However, the interactive review system also seems to prolong the process. In addition, it is really annoying that each answer has to be placed in a separate box, meaning that you have to copy and paste the answers prepared in one file on your computer one after another.
Frontiers in Psychology 3.6
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Frontiers in Psychology 2.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: Positive experience. I have to specify that we were invited to submt the manuscript for a special issue.
Frontiers in Psychology 7.1
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Very fast and rigorous review. The paper was much improved, especially in the theoretical part.
Frontiers in Psychology n/a n/a 16.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Frontiers provided a very unfriendly and uninformative rejection notice: "The claims are vague. There is not sufficient content to merit publication in this journal." The rejection came in the week that Frontiers journals were in the news for being too lax and accepting.
Frontiers in Psychology 11.6
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Took longer than expected to get first round of reviews. Good and thorough reviews. We were quick to revise and the reviewers approved our changes within a week or so. Editor took another 6 weeks to formally approve. Still, quicker than most linguistics and many psychology journals, and the paper is available directly.
Frontiers in Psychology 4.9
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The rapid review system was excellent. The review process was efficient and rigorous and my paper was much improved as a result.