Reviews for "Geologica Carpathica"

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
Geologica Carpathica 9.0
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: Since the beginning review process was correct; the associate editor asked three recognized experts in the field for a review. I have received 3 constructive reviews together with an evaluation and recommendations from the associate editor within 2 months. I prepared corrected version and Response letter during a month. The associate editor after receiving a positive feedback from the addressed reviewers recommended to the Editorial board acceptance of this paper. I must say that the Review process was transparent and objective.
Geologica Carpathica 6.0
weeks
9.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Geologica Carpathica 9.7
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Overall, a very positive experience with a very professional editorial handling.
Geologica Carpathica 6.7
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was accurate and useful. The manuscript was carefully evaluated in every aspect by both the reviewers (which were extremely competent on the subject of the paper) and by the editor. This process greatly improved the manuscript.
Geologica Carpathica 8.6
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Geologica Carpathica 16.7
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field who gave constructive comments.
Geologica Carpathica 10.0
weeks
20.1
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back 2015
Motivation: Our manuscript had several errors or shortcomings that had to be removed, there is no doubt about it. However, nor did I or my co-authors were satisfied with the manners of the handling editor and some reviewers in this case. We later sent a manuscript into another journal where it was finally published.
Geologica Carpathica 15.7
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: It was a great pleasure to work with very professional and kind Members of the Geologica Carpathica journal, as well as with external anonymous Reviewers. Everything was perfect, from the first moment of registration at submission system to the final technical quality and design of the published Manuscript.
Geologica Carpathica 15.4
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The work on the manuscript by the editors of GEOLOGICA CARPATHICA was excellent. A little long seemed only to be waiting for reviews (but the reviews were very well done and helpful in improving the manuscript). So that the overall rating is very good.
Geologica Carpathica 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Geologica Carpathica 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Professional handling of manuscript, all questions were answered soon.