Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "Journal of Neuroscience"
| 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 Neuroscience | n/a | n/a | 49.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | n/a | n/a | 48.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 4.0 weeks |
6.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: The review process was efficient, two reviewer seemed to be quite familiar with the presented topic, the proposed comments were insightful and indeed improved the quality of the paper. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.0 weeks |
3.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: Even though we felt like the reviews were rather positive, we still got a rejection. Overall though, we appreciated how quick and smooth the review process was. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.9 weeks |
10.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 5.7 weeks |
5.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 0 (very bad) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: both refere comments were biased towards another group studying similar things. referes somehow failed (or acted in this way) to see the novelty of the presented data. I like overall system that Jneurosci provides, but biased reviews killed the paper. |
||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 6.0 weeks |
7.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: Overall acceptance rate and editorial rejection rate is about 30% and 25%, respectively. In the case of revision, "Your revision must include..." or "Your resubmission must include..." will be described. In former case, it is rather positive, however, in latter case, there is a risk for rejection after review. In recent days, competitive neuroscience journals such as eLife, Nature Communications, Scientific reports were released and the impact factor of JNeurosci was declined. However, a journal that performs fair pair review is still JNeurosci. |
||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 8.0 weeks |
8.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2018 |
| Motivation: A third reviewer was requested for the review after 4 weeks of submission. The first reviewer liked the paper a lot, considering it novel and important without major issues. The second reviewer stated that the paper is not suitable for the journal without providing any scientific suggestions. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 2.9 weeks |
6.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 9.0 weeks |
13.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: After the first rejection (missing control group), the paper was completely submitted again. Three reviewer made their comments and suggestions. All critics were both, fair and very constructive. After a first revision (meanwhile two reviewer were satifed), the editors asked for a minor revision. Done. The paper was accepted. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 6.7 weeks |
6.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2018 |
| Motivation: The reviewers did not appear to be experts on the topic. The comments were not at all harsh, but showed lack of knowledge of both the state of the art and the terminology used in the field. I also did not really appreciate the suggestion to revise the manuscript and send it to their much more expensive "sister" journal. |
||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 4.3 weeks |
4.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2017 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 5.6 weeks |
5.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2018 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2017 |
| Motivation: Very quick internal review by one of the editors, who gave us clear understandable reason to not proceed. Unfortunate but satisfied. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 4.9 weeks |
4.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2017 |
| Motivation: While the manuscript was rejected after the first review round, the reviewers' comments were respectful, fair and in-depth. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.3 weeks |
7.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2014 |
| Motivation: This was the worst publication experience in my career. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.1 weeks |
3.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2016 |
| Motivation: Fast turnaround, and the reasons for rejection were stated clearly. Although we would have preferred a different outcome, the process was painless and fair. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.5 weeks |
6.5 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2014 |
| Motivation: Everything went very quickly and efficiently with this Journal of Neuroscience review process. In a way, you somewhat expect this, given that you pay to submit to this journal. I was very pleased from start to finish with the speed, efficiency and quality of the peer review process with Journal of Neuroscience. | ||||||||
| Journal of Neuroscience | 6.3 weeks |
6.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2015 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 4.0 weeks |
8.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2012 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 3.1 weeks |
6.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2012 |
| Journal of Neuroscience | 5.4 weeks |
7.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2012 |
| Motivation: A top journal with great review system | ||||||||