Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.9 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Fairly quick and straightforward review process, no second review after a light revise & resubmit (minor revisions). Overall great experience!
16.4 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: Fairly standard review as I'm used it at JEMS, with decent reviews that increased clarity of the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: I've had faster desk rejections.
7.3 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Similar to previous submissions, decent reviews that were in agreement (makes revisions easier) and helped focus the paper.
21.4 weeks
26.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2022
7.7 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Another smooth experience with JEMS, very helpful reviewer comments that helped improve the manuscript and clarifying how the paper relates to the literature.
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Even though the result was rejection, the reviews were of excellent quality. The editor apologized for the unusually long review process.
9.0 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Thorough reviews that helped us clarify the message. Smooth process as usual with JEMS.
7.3 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The review process was fast and fair: approximately six months from original submission to publication on line, including two rounds of revision. Very helpful reviewer reports. Excellent overall experience.
7.0 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Submission for a special issue, smooth.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
Motivation: The criticism of both reviewers were constructive and helpful in developing the manuscript further. The review process was short compared to other journals. So I have written a 'thank you' message to the editors, despite the rejection.
10.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2019
10.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2019
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Very fluent process, high quality reviews, relatively fast
1.7 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: Went through two revisions, but the reviewers were quite helpful to improve the manuscript, with the editor helping navigate the comments (especially where I did not agree with the reviewers).
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
2017
17.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The paper was sent to peer-review and the process took more than 3 months. One of the reviewers provided a sustained feedback which revealed an attentive reading of our paper, highlighting many flaws which we were able to correct thanks to him/her and prepare the paper for further submission to another journal. The second reviewer however was sarcastic and very condescending. He/She provided a two line review stating that the paper had a major methodological flaw which made it unworthy of further comments. When submitting a paper to peer review in a top journal, we expect to get a report based on a objective reading of the paper and not on reviewer's "methodological ideologies". Through the provided report, it was obvious that the reviewer in question did not even read the paper thoroughly and just decided it was unworthy of even considering it.
11.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Great experience. Reviews were thorough, informative and fair. Encouragement along the way from the Editor too. A really great experience. JEMS is an exemplar of how the peer review system should work.
6.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: This was faster than previous experiences with JEMS, and we were given a chance to revise the paper despite one rather critical reviewer. The work we put into the revision paid out, though.
52.7 weeks
52.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: It took so long...
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: There were quite a few changes required from the editors, but all reasonable and straight forward to implement.
5.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
15.2 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Rejected
2013
Motivation: In the final decision, the editor referred only to the additional (negative) review, and not at all to the reviews from the first round or our changes to the manuscript.