Reviews for "Nutrition Reviews"
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 |
Nutrition Reviews | 3.7 weeks |
5.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Very smooth and prompt review process. Reviewers were thorough and seemed attentive to the details and message conveyed to the readers. The last round of reviews took a day to be addressed because I made a single word change that may or may not have been considered important. As an author, I feel like that unnecessarily delayed the process for two weeks. Small complaint, but should be noted. | |||||||
Nutrition Reviews | 5.7 weeks |
11.3 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The reviewers seemed interested and informed on the topic. Feedback was generally constructive and aimed at increasing clarity. From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time. |
|||||||
Nutrition Reviews | 13.0 weeks |
30.4 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted |
Motivation: After submitting revisions and waiting a couple of months, we received a second revision except it had exactly the same comments which had already been addressed. There was a bit of back and forth with the journal. It should have been a quicker process because there was only a single minor revision for the manuscript, which we addressed promptly, yet it took about 6 months to get it accepted from initial submission. | |||||||
Nutrition Reviews | 24.0 weeks |
24.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The time it took was exceptionally long (24 weeks), and resulted in only 1 reviewer report. The editor apologized for the long waiting time, but it still was a major drawback for this paper. |