Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were reasonable and helpful to refine my manuscript. However, the second-round review took much more time than usual, so I pushed the editor many times to know the status of the review.
Motivation:
There were three reviewers with minor comments.
Motivation:
Although there were a total of 5 referee reports, each were really fast and yet very detailed. The reports helped us to improve the article a lot by removing some extra hypotheses. It was a very pleasant experience!
Motivation:
Positive opinion of the speed and quality of the review process.
Motivation:
Fair review - they identified clear weaknesses, which were mostly manageable, although too frequent or widespread for the editor to warrant a revision.
Motivation:
Having five reviewers was quite helpful. While this resulted in many comments to address, the quality and breadth of the reviewer comments helped strengthen the final submission. The overall experience will help us in future submissions.
Motivation:
go ahead man
Motivation:
We went through an intensive review process, which greatly improved the manuscript. In the end, we were still rejected, and although the authors disagreed with the main point of the reviewer that suggested rejection, it was a careful and thought-out review. We also appreciated the input and care from the editor, who in the first round of reviews gave detailed and productive comments, after split reviews, and in the last round of review, gave a proper justification for rejection.
Motivation:
The review timeline of Acta Materialia is excruciatingly slow. Other than that, the editors and the reviewers are very fair in accommodating our responses to the final version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
After the first round of review, the article was rejected. Although one of the reviewers' comments was helpful and well-intentioned, the other's was brief and dismissive. We spent over two months revising and expanding the article in response to the reviewers' feedback. We then submitted a revised version with detailed responses, and the article was finally accepted as it is.
Motivation:
The publisher provides a clear timeline to help authors keep track of the manuscript's status. The submission interface is easy to use.
Motivation:
Very responsive editors and excellent review process.
Motivation:
Our handling editor was very responsive and extremely comprehensive. I think all the review reports were also of good quality and I am very happy with the feedbacks we received on this manuscript which truly strengthen our findings.
Motivation:
Turnaround time for reviews was much faster than expected, especially given the extremely high quality of the reviews from scholars who were clearly extremely knowledgeable in the field.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
Motivation:
The review process took a long time; the reason for the reviewer's proposed rejection was not fully understood.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
Editor and reviewers were quick in their decision. The manuscript was rejected because the editor judged its topic to be too preliminar to perform a SR, but reviewers' comments were overall positive. Despite the rejection, a good experience.
Motivation:
The reviewers provide thorough and comprehensive insights into the study topic and help strengthen the study for publication.
Motivation:
Handling and communication concerning the manuscript were quick. However, some of the reviewer reports were unusual. The first reviewer had valuable inputs, however, at times requested additional work that would have gone far beyond the scope of the presented manuscript or which was simply not applicable/feasible for the investigated specimen. However, the second reviewer did not really seem to care about the work, as their suggestions were more of a general nature (extend discussion without specific inputs, add highlights, add a graphical abstract).