Reviews for "Nutrition Reviews"

Review this journal Show journal page
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.