Reviews for "NeuroImage"

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
NeuroImage n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
NeuroImage n/a n/a 41.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
NeuroImage n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
NeuroImage n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
NeuroImage 6.6
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The Review process appeared to be rather smooth. There was a small delay in the last round ("Decision in Progress" status for some days), but overall the experience was very good.
NeuroImage 3.0
weeks
3.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: One reviewer was positive and constructive, but the other reviewer apart from being rude, did not seemed to be familiar with technical details of similar published studies and also inquired about details which were explicitly stated in the submitted manuscript. Editor was helpful.
NeuroImage 5.6
weeks
5.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2017
NeuroImage 8.4
weeks
8.4
weeks
n/a 4 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
NeuroImage 6.9
weeks
6.9
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Neuroimage (NI) is arguably the top journal in the area of Neuroimaging. Although my proposed methodology was appreciated, the writing style was suggested for further improvement. I didn't see any strong negative comments from the reviewers. I guess NI is focused on maintaining a very high rejection rate.
NeuroImage 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2014