Reviews for "Journal of Medical Internet Research"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
12.0
weeks
38.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Drawn back 2021
Motivation: Disappointingly unprofessional, slow process. It has been 11 months since we submitted our manuscript and 6 months since we submitted a revised version based on two reviews, one positive and one requesting numerous changes to formatting and organization. Our numerous email inquiries and inquiries through online forms have not received a response.
47.6
weeks
47.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: We received a conditional acceptance with minor revision after one round of revision. And then the editor went silent for eight months after we submitted the final version. We tried to contact the editor at least three times but received no responses during this eight-month period. We finally talked to the website manager to get a response. And then the editor informed us that we needed to transfer the article to its sister journal newly founded in 2021, otherwise the paper would be rejected because it was no longer suited for the journal. This is the treatment we got from this journal. Also, this paper is led by a graduate student and basically one year has been wasted for her, which made this experience even worse. I would not recommend this journal to my colleagues.
17.3
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2022
Motivation: The reviewers raised minor issues that we addressed in the first round. The editor didn't give a clear accept/reject response even after we insisted. They said our article may be better for another JMIR journal without mentioning any specific concern why. The whole experience with JMIR was very unusual compared to other journals.
4.0
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2021
Motivation: After "Decision B: (minor revision)" in JMIR during 2nd review round, our manuscript was neglected by the journal. In the end, it was only accepted after sending multiple emails and agreeing to transfer our submission to a sister journal without IF.
8.4
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
8.4
weeks
18.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: The review process took a very long time (especially after the revision). We received two reviews.

One of the reviewers didn't like our paper (possibly because we didn't cite her\him) and was abusive in their language.

In the second round the comments both reviewers raised new issues which are provably wrong.
11.0
weeks
34.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2020
1.3
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: We opted for an open review round (so the abstract of the paper is displayed on the website of the journal and any registered reader can review it), and it was a big mistake. The quality of the reviews was below acceptable, very short, not helpful at all, and didn't improve the manuscript even a bit. Reviewers didn't know some of the very common field-specific terms and marked them as mistakes. Most likely, the reviewers were not from the same or even close field. Although it initially sped up the review process, I do not recommend choosing the open review round due to the low quality of reviews. The second review, although only minor, took the journal 4 times longer to process, and the time between acceptance and publishing online was at least a month.
3.7
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Provided good comments to improve my manuscript. The process was efficient.
8.6
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: General speaking, it is a positive experience with JMIR. JMIR author guidance is very clear and the structure of my manuscript has been improved by following the JMIR author guidance. Despite not paying for fast track publication, we received our reviews fairly quickly (around 2 months). Additionally, the comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers are quite useful.
4.4
weeks
8.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Our overall experience with this journal was relatively positive. Despite not paying for fast track publication, we received our reviews fairly quickly and the whole process was clear and structured to manage both parties' expectations. However, the reviewers' comments were not helpful and it seemed as if they did not even read the article. We were grateful for the chance to rank the reviewers and hope either their expertise lay elsewhere or they will not be used for other submitters in the future. JMIR has clearly thought about the experience of authors, and we look forward to submitting with them again in the future.
2.9
weeks
18.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Overall it was a wonderful experience. We really appreciate the editor and reviewers' constructive feedback through the process.
4.3
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: JMIR Dermatology provided a quick and painless submission process. The editors and reviewers were quick about their decisions and provided clear recommendations for revision. One of the best experiences I have had with a journal
27.9
weeks
27.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
3.1
weeks
6.7
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: I had an excellent experience submitting my manuscript with JMIR Medical Informatics. I received valuable feedback from editors that strengthen my manuscript. As well, the review process was very simple and straight forward. JMIR author guidelines for submission are very clear and I was never confused during the review process. I will definitely recommend this journal to my colleagues and plan to publish with JMIR again in the future.
6.6
weeks
6.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: Very straightforward review process. The reviewer suggestions were detailed and appropriate.
6.7
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The process of working with JMIR and its editorial team was very straightforward. We received productive feedback on the submitted manuscript and were pleased with you quickly our revision was processed and accepted for publication.
0.7
weeks
0.9
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Excellent and relatively painless review process. Cost of publishing is high but articles will be open access.
3.3
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: I chose the fast track process to fasten this step. When you conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews, the knowledge evolves quickly. At the time of the intial submission, the review is not "up-to-date" anymore. If the review process takes a long time, then, reviewers may ask to update the literature/search strategy. It can be a "never-ending" process...
I was very impressed by the timeline of this fast track process.
I got high quality services, I had very constructive comments from the reviewers.
I'm very satisfied and proud to be published in this high impact factor journal (JMIR).
4.3
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
8.9
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The process of open review was new to us, and we were pleasantly surprised about the outcome. We received comments from three different reviewers which where all very helpful to us. The reviews were overall balanced concerning pointing out strengths and weak spots in the manuscript. The comments were concrete and phrased in a manner that was easy to understand and follow when doing revisions.
3.0
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
4.4
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: We are satisfied with the submission process as well as with the reviewers because it was fast and not as burdensome as it is in other journals. The submission process saves time and that was very valuable for us.
4.6
weeks
4.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: We are satisfied with how Journal of Medical Internet Research handled our manuscript, the review process was nimble. As researchers we are grateful that the process was not as
time-consuming as our experience with other journals. It is remarkable taking into account that JMIR is a prestigious journal.
22.1
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: JMIR boasts quick turnaround times for first review under 3 months (see: https://www.jmir.org/reviewer/fastTrackStats/). I first contacted the journal 3 months after submission and received no responses from the editor for several weeks. A generic helpdesk staff member pointed me to a JMIR blog article asking authors not to contact the journal before 5 months is up. I did so and the journal still did not respond. I finally received a first decision slightly under 6 months after first submission.
Reviews were of moderate quality. To the journal's credit, subsequent revisions were reviewed within days up until final acceptance.
9.4
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The journal provided a timely and very high-quality review process.
5.4
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The whole submitting process is transparent and our manuscript was processed efficiently. The reviews we received were critical but very helpful in improving our manuscript. We invest much effort to revise the manuscript and the decision was received in a short time.
13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
8.7
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 6 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was excellent and very time-efficient.
The editor has provided great guidance for transferring my submission to the suitable journal and during the review process.
Editor and reviewers’ comments were useful and resulted in an improved manuscript.
Editorial office and support team responded to the questions very clear.
7.3
weeks
8.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The reviewers' comments were very constructive and detailed, which helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. The editor has provided clear and direct guidance during the review process. The turnaround time was great and shorter than we'd expected.
4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 7 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
8.0
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
3.0
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
4.0
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: We sent our manuscript to the journal knowing that they have clear principles regarding quality but also regarding time of the reviewing process. The experience we have is just in this direction.
The whole process is automated and therefore clear and transparent. The reviews were helpful and in a positive mind but also critical. After putting much effort again to revise our manuscript we resubmitted and the decision was made in a short time.

As reviewer for that journal for many articles I also know that the editor is very clear to set boundaries for the time for the reviewers. That is very helpful for scientists as we know it is necessary to publish much and in good quality (this is not the best thing but reality) so it is a great difference in comparison to some journals which let you wait a year or more just to get a negative answer.
Regarding the review process my experience also is that the answers from other reviewers are also mostly polite and nevertheless critical and in many cases the manuscripts have to be rejected. This let us compare the weight of being accepted in that journal.

All in all we could see that it is a clear and good way of the journal to work with authors and reviewers to get results which rely on good work and not only on significant results.
3.1
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
7.3
weeks
9.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The review process was excellent. We received thorough and constructive feedback from three reviewers, which helped us improve our manuscript substantially. The editor was very responsive, giving clear guidance and making the decision fast after we submitted our revised paper.
3.6
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The JMIR provided me a fast, high-quality, peer reviewing and the reviewing process made my article substantially improved. The reviewers were very professional and excellent. The editor-in-chief was very friendly to the authors. After these promising reviewing and revisions, we were satisfied for such as a high-quality and high-impact submission/reviewing system.
13.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: I appreciated that in addition to providing the comments from the external reviewers they also included general comments relating to the journal itself. One challenge I experienced was that while I was submitting my response the system timed out and did not save what I had entered. I would recommend you save your response in a separate file and copy it into the response box rather than directly typing it in.
3.9
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
11.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The administrational handling was excellent. Unfortunately, the peer review comments were not quite elaborated.