Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory.
The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.
It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.
The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious.
It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.