Reviews for "The 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 Year
The Gerontologist n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The editor gave very constructive feedback to improve the MS and thus have a better fit with the journal, thus implicitly encouraged a resubmission after revising the addressed points.
The Gerontologist 2.1
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
The Gerontologist 3.9
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Knowledgeable reviewers (clearly experts in the area) provided constructive feedback. The review process was quick and efficient. The MS was handled very well by the editor.
The Gerontologist 13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2018
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
The Gerontologist 9.3
weeks
13.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
The Gerontologist 6.6
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
The Gerontologist 6.3
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
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).
The Gerontologist 3.4
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
The Gerontologist n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
The Gerontologist 2.5
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: Very quick review times, and good reviews, too. Editor seemed to rely fully on the reviewers.