Reviews for "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health"

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
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.9
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.9
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.1
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Thanks the contribution by reviewers and editoral team. I had a positive and pleasure contact and submission.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 3.3
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: This journal have a rapid peer-review process and friendly submission system. The reviewers proivded pertinent comments to help the authors shape the manuscript in a strong and readable manner. In addition, the communication with the assigned assistant editor was pretty smooth, and she responsed swiftly and fully answered the questions we raised. This is the first time that we submit our research to this journal, and we suggest those who prefer a short period of peer-review process to submit their studies to this journal.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 0.6
weeks
0.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 4.9
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The technical side of the review process was excellent - clear communication & fast responses. Deadlines for resubmitting the manuscript were very short (one week, if I remember correctly).
The quality of the reviews was very disappointing. The first reviewer wrote just a few sentences, full of typos and almost exclusively related to two specific aspects of the paper (nevertheless those comments were helpful). The second reviewer just questioned the whole paper without suggesting any changes. No comments regarded the method section or the main theme. Reviewers did not seem to be familiar with the methods used.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 0.7
weeks
1.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Opinions of the reviewers are useful and helpful to our manuscript. This journal is very efficient!
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted