Reviews for "Journal of Crystal Growth"

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
Journal of Crystal Growth 3.1
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The handling process was smooth. There was a conflict between our opinion and reviewers opinion. So editor send our manuscript to the another reviewer. And finally our manuscript have been accepted. I recommend this journal
Journal of Crystal Growth 2.0
weeks
2.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewer suggested not to publish our manuscript in the journal. He gave some fair comment. Overall good experience
Journal of Crystal Growth 7.1
weeks
23.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Journal of Crystal Growth 25.1
weeks
27.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: Many of the reviewers' comments were not significant.
Journal of Crystal Growth 5.1
weeks
5.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was reviewed in a very short period of time.
Journal of Crystal Growth 5.0
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was OK, I can recommend this journal.
Journal of Crystal Growth 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Editors message - "Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that the Reviewer #1 is advising against publication of your work, suggesting that this paper might be better suited for a control journal. Therefore I must reject it."
With decision based on the reviewer 1 who also writes "Overall, the authors present an interesting approach." and reviewer 2 who writes "This paper is an important contribution to this area of research." Obviously the Editor generates decision on the 1st reviewer whose claims are not supported since similar works have been published in Journal of Crystal Growth. Not only that Editor does not give any chance to authors to refute reviewer's claims.