Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Review time was quick and review feedback quite helpful. Reviewers seemed to have required expertise, and were eager to help make the manuscript the best it could be. Communication with editor was fast and easy.
Motivation:
Good and efficient editorial work. Reviews were of good quality, mostly.
Motivation:
The review process was handled swiftly and professionally. Communication was clear throughout, and the feedback from the reviewer was both constructive and detailed, contributing positively to the manuscript’s development.
Motivation:
The entire editorial process at the journal progressed very efficiently. Each stage was handled in a timely manner, and the peer reviewers provided constructive and insightful feedback. Overall, it was a smooth and encouraging experience.
Motivation:
I liked the reviews, although my article was rejected. However, I didn't like the editor comments. Although the reviewers suggested major revisions or revise and resubmitt, the editorial board rejected the article. Moreover, their add their opinion regarding one part of the article, that was different than what reviewers wrote. Overall, I rate reviewers work really high, but editorial board not so well.
Motivation:
The journal says in the page that it takes "0 days avg. from submission to first decision" which is not true, it took them 1 month to reject my paper, and I upload another one and is still with the Journal Adminsitrator after 13 days...
Motivation:
The peer review process was quite fast, I received an outcome of minor revision, and after the changes the paper was accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer’s comments are not few and are fairly detailed. From a technical standpoint, responding to or revising the manuscript is not very difficult. However, not all of the reviewer’s suggestions are entirely appropriate, and the author should maintain firm judgment regarding their own work, while also responding to the reviewers' questions with patience. Reviewer 2 provided a particularly thoughtful suggestion: to minimize the use of an uncommon abbreviation to refer to the study population to ensure that they feel respected and acknowledged. This comment was heartwarming. Nevertheless, the review process was quite long, and I was really anxious at that time.
Motivation:
The editorial process was highly efficient, and the reviewers were clearly experts in the field. Their insightful comments and questions were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript.
Motivation:
Publication type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
Submission portal was updated 2 weeks after the date of initial submission to indicate that it was sent for external review. I received the reviewer comments 5 weeks after the date of initial submission. Reviewer comments were fair and applicable to the manuscript. The first revision was accepted less than a week after its submission. The overall publication process was efficient.
Submission portal was updated 2 weeks after the date of initial submission to indicate that it was sent for external review. I received the reviewer comments 5 weeks after the date of initial submission. Reviewer comments were fair and applicable to the manuscript. The first revision was accepted less than a week after its submission. The overall publication process was efficient.
Motivation:
Paper was accepted within a day or two after being assigned to the Editor. The editor requested minor changes, we promptly submitted them, and our submission was accepted the next day. I wish all submissions went that way!
Motivation:
The peer-review process was of high quality. The reviewers’ reports and suggestions were highly relevant and contributed significantly to improving the manuscript. The editor was approachable and responded to emails in a timely manner. The only drawback was the overall duration of the process, as it took over a year from submission to publication.
Motivation:
The manuscript was quickly sent out for review. A rejection is always bitter after waiting 2 months for a decision, but the whole process went well.
Motivation:
The overall process was smooth, although the initial review took a bit longer than expected due to the winter holidays. However, it was ultimately a great experience publishing in this journal.
Motivation:
After an initial invitation to revise and resubmit, new objections were raised. One reviewer did have interesting suggestions on further areas of improvement. However, it almost seems that the reviewer was implicitly demanding that nonchemical measurements be undertaken despite the manuscript describing a chemically based technique.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 3.5 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Slow editorial but the reviewers were good.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent out for review after 2 weeks. Only one reviewer agreed to review, but did not send in their review. 2 new reviewers were invited after 4 months. Both reviewers used a very short time on the review (1 day and 12 days), and both reviews were very short, superficial and seemed rushed.
Motivation:
Extremely well-managed journal, with efficient communication and regular updates at every stage of the process. Fast turnaround times and exceptionally responsive editors, so rare to find these days. Highly recommended. Sadly, my manuscript was not accepted after the first round of reviews.
Motivation:
Two out of three reviewers were positive, but one reviewer was negative, which significantly influenced the editor's final decision to reject the manuscript.
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were quite helpful in resubmitting the manuscript to another journal (which was later accepted).