Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The editor was incredibly clear, kind, prompt, and helpful in her responses. Her grace and understanding were especially appreciated, as this was the first article I have ever submitted.
Motivation:
Everyone involved -- editor, reviewers, journal staff -- was professional and helpful. The reviews showed that the reviewers had read the manuscript and looked at the submitted materials carefully; the reviews provided helpful ideas. The editor guided us through the process smoothly. Several times I had to ask the journal's staff for help; I got help quickly. Start to finish (submission to publication of the copyedited version) took just 11 weeks. I was impressed.
Motivation:
Too niche apparently, but reviews that helped improve the manuscript for the next journal.
Motivation:
The review reports came within a reasonable time frame. Moreover, the quality of reviews was very high. The reviewers were critical and constructive. This was a positive surprise, because the same manuscript had not received meaningful reviews with another journal in the same field.
Motivation:
My experience with the submission process was very good and it did not take long for my article to publish as well, i believe that as long as the material is good in the paper, their is novelty, the language is correct, then the journal will accept the article. although it might take some time in the review process as it still depends on if the reviewers are available.
Motivation:
It was a relatively normal review process. The handling editor wrote many comments on his own, doing almost his own review report, which was a bit weird, but fine. Overall an average good review process.
Motivation:
6 simultaneous reviews was hard work but the first round of comments were very good
Motivation:
The reviewers gave detailed comments to improve the manuscript and identified theoretical problems with the current manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewers were constructive and helpful. The assiatant editor was also helpful. A weak point is the on-line manuscript handling system of this journal which is not a user-friendly system.
Motivation:
I communicated with the section managing editor and the assistant editor in the manuscript handling process. Both were helpful and responsive. At the initial on-line publication of the paper they used the original supplementary table instead of the revised verion however they replaced it immediately after I requested the replacement with the revised version.
Motivation:
eNeuro handled this manuscript quickly and effectively, collecting useful reviews in a timely manner. Their double-blind process and editorial synthesis of comments were also appreciated. The whole process was smooth and steps were well-communicated.
6.7 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Overall, I found the process to be quick and efficient. The reviewers' comments were constructive and provided valuable insights. Additionally, the editor prepared a comprehensive list with all comments, which was very helpful. I am overall satisfied with the experience.
Motivation:
Our experience publishing an original scientific paper in the journal 'Biomolecules and Biomedicine' was very positive. All responses arrived within the specified time frame, and we promptly received clear instructions for any ambiguities. The reviews were detailed and well-intentioned, and we believe they ultimately improved the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
Pretty quick revision. Editor helped us to find to two external reviewers, and received minor revision with only 10 questions. our paper was accepted within 3 days of revision submission.
Motivation:
Although a little slow in the beginning (who is not??!) the editors were very responsive and I think the review process was excellent.
Motivation:
We got 3 reviewers, the reports were relatively easy and the handling was really smooth.
Just the editorial modifications (formatting, gene names, etc) was a bit a pain, but nothing impossible.
Just the editorial modifications (formatting, gene names, etc) was a bit a pain, but nothing impossible.
Motivation:
The first review was positive with the recommendation to make minor changes for acceptance. The second review was quite critical with the recommendation to reject. The editor sided with reviewer 2 and rejected. Note that communication with the journal in their internal system was not reliable/response times were quite long (weeks) for inquiries about the status of the manuscript, e.g. if reviewers had been secured and approximate timelines for review. However, this may depend on the editorial assistant assigned to the MS and therefore isn't a reflection of the journal as a whole.
Motivation:
The judging process was faster than I thought, and at the same time, the necessary accuracy was used in the judging.
Interactions with the journal were accompanied by respectful interactions from the editor.
Interactions with the journal were accompanied by respectful interactions from the editor.
Motivation:
The reviewers made opposing recommendations (one to reject and other major revisions). The reviewers showed clear opposing appreciations. For example, one reviewer mentioned that it found the "contribution not strong enough to justify publication in one of the leading outlets in communications and PR research" and the other reviewer mentioned, about the same topic, "The information provided in this paper is new; at any rate, this reviewer is unaware of an equivalent study". The editor decided to reject (that is, to follow just one of the recommendations).
Motivation:
The handling of the paper was efficient and the review reports were so-so. That said, I would consider this journal again in the future.
Motivation:
Despite many rounds of review, it was overall a good process, and I would (and have) recommended this journal to colleagues.
Motivation:
Very good experience, could be a bit faster though.
Motivation:
The editor was very quick to take decision.