Reviews for "Gerontologist"

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
Gerontologist 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected
Motivation: I had the chance to make a few modifications as suggested by the editor before the manuscript was sent out to reviewers.
After rejection, the editor sugggested to transfer my manuscript to a more suited journal. I was pleased with this decision
Gerontologist 9.3
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
Gerontologist 6.6
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
Gerontologist 6.3
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: This was a very rigorous review process. I felt the first revision was very useful and improved the manuscript substantially. But I believe subsequent revisions were unnecessary and superficial, but had to be done basically to satisfy a review who I felt didn't fully understand the study. Nevertheless I appreciated the thoroughness of the process and I am grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their efforts, although the whole process did take some time from start to completion (presumably due to the multiple revisions requested).
Gerontologist 3.4
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
Gerontologist n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Gerontologist 2.5
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review times, and good reviews, too. Editor seemed to rely fully on the reviewers.