Reviews for "Journal of Medical Internet Research"

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 Year
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 7 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Journal of Medical Internet Research 8.0
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.0
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1
weeks
3.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.9
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 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.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 12.4
weeks
13.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.6
weeks
7.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: JMIR provided a seamless submission and very professional and time efficient and valuable review process. The Editor and reviewers' comments were valuable and really helpful in improving the manuscript pre-publication. Great to experience that support, professionalism, effective and supportive communication and efficiency throughout the review process. This sets a benchmark for journal submission and review processes for scientific publications. Especially impressive given this is the leading journal in this area and has a high volume of submissions.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.0
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The review process for this journal was very time-efficient and the editorial office was clear in their email communication. Having published a protocol with the journal, we are pleased the results paper will appear in the same journal.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 21.4
weeks
23.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1
weeks
3.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Journal of Medical Internet Research 14.7
weeks
15.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: JMIR offers a rigorous, efficient and fair review process. The quality of the comments and criticisms from both reviewers was excellent. The reviewers offered constructive feedback, which helped us to improve the paper.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 9.0
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 4 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: I appreciated getting thoughtful feedback from four reviewers.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.6
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Given that Christmas and New Year comprised the initial review period, and four reviewers provided comments, the initial review was timely. The comments from one reviewer were extensive, but they did help to improve the manuscript.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2.4
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.6
weeks
6.2
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review was quick and efficient. 2/3 of the reviewers sent extremely helpful comments that improved the manuscript considerably.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 5.0
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.0
weeks
3.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: We had an extremely positive experience with the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) editorial process after publishing our research protocol in the sister journal, JMIR Research Protocols. The Editor was rapid and directive in his editorial decisions, which was appreciated. Highly recommended.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.7
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The durations of the reviews were less than 4 weeks, so it is relatively fast. The comments of two reviewers were rigorous and helpful for the improvement of my manuscript, so we revised our paper twice. We extended the revision time once, and the editor was easy to communicate.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The process was very fast, professional and direct.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.3
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2.7
weeks
3.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Very professional and prompt responses. I was impressed with the interface for submission and the turnaround on submissions and revisions.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Thorough peer- review process. Manuscript greatly improved through the process.
I would recommend submitting to the journal
Journal of Medical Internet Research 4.1
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Journal of Medical Internet Research 5.4
weeks
7.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Very efficient review process
Journal of Medical Internet Research 4.7
weeks
10.6
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process by JMIR was excellent. Our manuscript was reviewed carefully, yet quickly enough, by 3 experts. Their comments helped improve our work. Despite Christmas and New Year, the following steps were handled with care.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.1
weeks
5.0
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Very fast turn over compared to many other journals. Received comments from only one reviewer. Somewhat cumbersome submission procedure.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 2.4
weeks
9.6
weeks
n/a 10 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: We were very satisfied with this journal.
Especially, editor and reviewers give us to very helpful comments to improve manuscripts.
Also, we were pleased with fast review process.

Then, we recommend to submit this journal.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 7.0
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.9
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Quality reviews that improved the manuscript.
The turn-around times were excellent! We didn't have to pay a fast track fee
Journal of Medical Internet Research 10.1
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: We did not pay for fast track publication, however, we were pleased with the speed of review. Further, the reviewers' comments were useful, and, we believe, resulted in an improved manuscript.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.6
weeks
7.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The entire process went very quickly (though we did pay for Fast-Track) and relatively smoothly. I would have liked more feedback on what was going on during the review and re-review, but everything was completed within the promised time. Finally, I had some concerns with the quality of one of the reviews, but the editor appears to have addressed it.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 5.0
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: The quick turn around time and thoughtful and concise feedback made the experience with submission the JMIR painless.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 3.7
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: I chose the 'fast track' option that was available. This expedited the review process. The editor and the reviewers assessed my manuscript in a very efficient and yet thorough manner. The communication was all very clear throughout the process.
Journal of Medical Internet Research n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: I asked a specific question about the requirements for clinical trials pre-registration and received an immediate reply from the editor stating that our paper did not meet their requirements, but might be considered for publication in their sister journal for feasibility trials. I am very grateful to have received such a clear, prompt response.