Reviews for "Journal of Cleaner Production"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
10.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2022
37.9
weeks
37.9
weeks
n/a 6 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2020
3.9
weeks
21.5
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
9.3
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
4.3
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
5.0
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Received very good reviews in the first round. The quality of paper improved after answering those questions. But, later one of the reviewers took around 5 months to respond back. Quite minor corrections were proposed.
16.3
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: First of all it should be mentioned that the content of the manuscript covered a couple of different scientific fields. So it seemed to be very complicated for the journal to find the right editor dealing with the manuscript (within a few days three emails were sent informing about changes in the editor; in all cases the third editor was taken for further processing of the manuscript.
The reviewers comments were of good to very good quality and helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the comments of the editor were of mainly low quality and didn´t help to improve the manuscript´s quality.
It was the third time I send an manuscript to JCLEPRO. At the first time I made very good experiences with this journal. However, the second time (which was the former version of the actual third submission) the manuscript was rejected by the editor without sending it to reviewers due to really weak aspects like wrong unit (not IUPEC), plural in keywords, vertical column headers instead of horizontal ones, header of the y-axes in a figure was shifted...
During the third trial the comments of editors (as shown) were of mainly low quality and the timeline between submission and first decision was nearly 5 months and that way very long. I personally reviewed a few manuscripts of the JCLEPRO and I got all the time a second email when three weeks intervall was finished. Most probably, the large time gap was not caused by the reviewers.
n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: At least 8 points of (in my opinion) minor relevance were presented as reasons for the rejection by the editor. For example, changes in a few units, no plural in the keywords, column headers of a table shouldn´t be presented in a vertical way...
8.6
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Transfer of the manuscript from the server platform to the editor took about 1-2 days. Forwaring or decisions of the editor were done within 1 day.
6.6
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Very professional approach by the editor and the reviewers.
6.7
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: I was a little worried regarding handling time from reading the other comments here on SciRev. However, my experience with JCP was very good. The submission to first decision time was excellent and the reviewer's comments were useful and of high quality. It was my first experience with this journal, but I would definitely consider it again in the future.
7.3
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The overall review process was very efficient and the review reports were very constructive.
33.9
weeks
39.9
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The whole review process took too long. In the resubmission of the manuscript (where extensive changes were made), the editor said that he received two conflicting reviews, one reviewer was satisfied with the changes, the other acknowledged the changes but thought it was still not ready for publication. This whole process took almost a year and it would be good to have an input earlier on.
7.8
weeks
31.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: It took time to publish in this journal but I think JCL consider quality and rigour in Publication.
13.4
weeks
21.0
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Referee reports in second round were of poor quality, but it also seems that the editor considered the paper to be not within the aims and scope of the journal - which is of course ok, but usually this gives you a desk rejection.
36.0
weeks
40.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The overall process was quite long. It took almost 1 year for the article to be published. The reviewers comments were sensible and the suggested changes improved the quality of the paper.
5.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: In this case, it went on well. In another manuscript, reviewing time went more than 20 weeks.
3.3
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2012
Motivation: Dr. Huising and Dr. Klemes do great job in taking the manuscript, handling and finding reviewers and maintaining a fast communication in all aspects. JCP was the most efficient journal that I have worked with so far. I can assure you that you will receive iniitial feedback in less than 2-2.5 months