Reviews for "Gastroenterology"

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
Gastroenterology 5.3
n/a 4 5
Motivation: This journal is extremely fast with the review process. Editor was excellent and review was tough but fair. It took us over 6 months to address all critiques but it was totally worth it, as a result, the manuscript was significantly improved. Following acceptance the paper was available online the same week. I was extremely happy with the review process, but very disappointed with the production process following the acceptance. The proofs were absolutely terrible. Production team made typos in the title, throughout text, figure quality was terrible, and communication with the production team was very difficult. It took us several attempts to get to the agreement and bring the manuscript to the acceptable publication quality.
Gastroenterology 6.0
n/a 2 3
Motivation: The review happened very quickly to the credit of the journal. Only one of the two reviewers seemed competent to review the manuscript and provided helpful comments, and the other extremely out of date with the field and techniques. There were no comments from the editor, but simply a copy/paste of the comments from the reviewers, which is sloppy and lazy for a journal supposed of this caliber. For a journal that charges a submission fee that is unacceptable. The manuscript was rejected despite having easily addressable comments. I would not consider submitting to this journal in the future.