Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
One reviewer considered our approach not novel enough and that largely was it.
Motivation:
my article was sent to 7 reviewers and 5 of them asked for rejection while two asked for revisions, i think sending one article to 7 reviewers is abit too much and i have not heard of this before, but it is okay because i am planning to follow the reviewers suggestion and after i am done i plan to submit the article again to this journal.
the only thing that is not good is the first decision time which took about a month, and also when the review was finished it took about two weeks almost for the editors to give me the final decision , so i think that time can be saved by making it abit faster.
the only thing that is not good is the first decision time which took about a month, and also when the review was finished it took about two weeks almost for the editors to give me the final decision , so i think that time can be saved by making it abit faster.
Motivation:
The handling time is reasonable. The reviewer's comment was very generic.
Motivation:
Detailed and informative reviews.
Motivation:
Good journal (ESCI, Scopus) for timely decisions.
Motivation:
Excellent choice of reviewers who understood the science underpinning our research and provided actionable feedback.
Motivation:
The reviewer comments are quite constructive.
Motivation:
I like this journal because of the efficient peer review process and very constructive suggestions from reviewers.
Motivation:
Overall very positive experience. The first round of review was somehow slow, in part, because our topic was a bit exotic. Editor and production team very responsive
Motivation:
It took about a month for the journal to send it for peer review. On the positive side, they send you a personalised link where you can see how many reviewers accepted and how many have already sent their decision.
Regarding the quality of the comments, they were generally good and well-founded. However, I am somewhat concerned that one of the reviewers suggested adding some references that many had in common with the same author, which indicates certain bad practices. Although, as the manuscript was rejected, I cannot say this with certainty.
Regarding the quality of the comments, they were generally good and well-founded. However, I am somewhat concerned that one of the reviewers suggested adding some references that many had in common with the same author, which indicates certain bad practices. Although, as the manuscript was rejected, I cannot say this with certainty.
Motivation:
The process was quick, and we received two constructive reviewer reports. Overall, we were pleased with the feedback, which included only minor comments to address.
Motivation:
Editorial process was swift and efficient. The reviews were critical, improved the manuscript, and were fair.
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast. We received very thorough, constructive reviews that allowed us to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
The journal's review process was efficient, with rapid publication times. The review reports were thorough and detailed, contributing to a smooth review experience that ultimately improved the paper's quality.
Motivation:
The review took less time than expected.
Motivation:
Communication with the journal was fast and the editor was very supportive. Additionally, two of the three initial reviewers were in support of a timely publication and highlighted the value of the work for the research community. However, already during the first peer review round, it became clear that the third reviewer (whose expertise seemed to align with the topic only partially) would, even following revisions, not be supportive of its publication.
Motivation:
The process was positive, although somewhat lengthy (it took nearly a year to complete). However, the reviewers' comments were insightful and constructive.
Motivation:
Despite having 2 relevant review reports with suggested changes, and one reviewer that discussed the lack of novelty of our paper, the editor decided to reject it motivating "low priority".
Immediately accepted after 0.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation:
This was a perspective paper for a Special Focus, so there was a selection process before we submitted the full paper. Overall the review process was very smooth. The AE and the reviewers were professional and offered a lot of good feedback.
Motivation:
Efficient review process. Reviewers made good suggestions and the paper was significantly improved.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled promptly, and the review process proceeded more quickly than expected. Both reviewer and editorial comments were constructive and helpful.
8.7 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Very high-quality and professional reviews that helped us significantly improve the paper.
11.7 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The entire review process was very professionally handled, with the editor giving clear guidance on what needed improvement for the paper to be accepted.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed by three reviewers, but the reviewer who suggested rejection gave reasons that could easily have been handled in a revision.
Motivation:
The editorial process was fast. AE and the editor-in-chief were open to communication. There were reviewers who refused to re-review the manuscript. The process took 7.5 months, but it could have been completed much sooner if the reviewers had been faster.
Motivation:
Excellent communication from the editor. Process was fairly quick. The reviews' quality were excellent and helped to improve the paper by a large margin.