Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process was remarkably efficient, with the editorial team providing prompt, professional handling. Reviewer feedback was clear, focused, and constructive. This made the revision process both smooth and productive.
Motivation:
The review process was impressively quick, and the editorial handling was efficient throughout. The reviewers provided clear and constructive feedback, objectively identifying areas for improvement while maintaining a professional tone. Their comments were concise and actionable, which significantly improved our manuscript. Overall, the experience was smooth and supportive.
Motivation:
Tough review process but yej quality was excellent.
Motivation:
Review comments were reasonable (N.B., there was a comment surrounding language and use of grammar, although it could not easily corroborated upon re-reading the manuscript). Editorial handling was excellent (e.g., editor quickly responded and apologized for a delay to the second round of reviews). Timeline was pretty reasonable compared to many other journals that are of a similar standing.
Motivation:
In general, i think the editor is very nice and it just hard for him to find the reviewer who is willing to review the paper. i found it wierd because PBR reputation is fine.
Motivation:
The revisions were on point and really helped improve the manuscript. Everything was faster that I expected.
Motivation:
Very fast turnaround and high quality reviews
Motivation:
There is a huge disagreement between the reviews: one recommended minor revisions, while two recommended rejection. In particular, two reviewers who suggested rejection demonstrated misunderstanding of our study with one reviewer not even giving any reference to support the comment.
Such disagreements should be addressed through further clarifications from the authors rather than through outright rejection."
Such disagreements should be addressed through further clarifications from the authors rather than through outright rejection."
Motivation:
The review process is excessively long, and the identification of suitable reviewers needs improvement. Disagreements among reviewers’ comments often remain unreconciled at an early stage, and one reviewer, who was particularly insistent on a comment, appeared to lack expertise in the topic.
Motivation:
Relatively fast and high quality reviews/editorial handling. The interactive peer review process works very well.
Motivation:
Overall smooth and quick process.
Motivation:
Originally we sent it the manuscript to ACS Catalysis, where we got a desk rejection in 4 hours, and invitation to redirect to Chem&Bio Eng. After some consideration we did this. We got 2 reviewers and they assessed the manuscript rather thoroughly. Revision required additional experiments that took us time, the resubmitted manuscript was in the end accepted after another small change. All in all, treatment was not particularly quick, but clearly the reviewers were good experts.
Motivation:
Experimental Neurology is a very high quality standard journal, manuscript is accepted if experimental comments are addressed. Peer review and quality for my manuscript was excellent and swift. The editor was sharp at the same time did not delay the process. Overall a very high quality journal
Motivation:
Since this was an invited review article, the submission process was smooth and efficient. The peer review comments were constructive and helped to deepen the insights in line with the main arguments of the manuscript.
Motivation:
Overal it was a quick and smooth process with a positive outcome.
Motivation:
The second round of review took a long time due to overlapping with the holiday season, but 3 months was a bit too much. However, the overall peer review suggestions and comments are of good quality and led to the improvement of the manuscript.
Motivation:
The peer reviewing process was very helpful in improving the manuscript quality, and appropriate technical suggestions were made.
Motivation:
The reviewers provide constructive feedback to help shape the manuscript into a more readable and well-structured form.
Motivation:
the editor rejected after major, effortful revisions without sending it to the reviewers again. The motivation to reject was based on weaknesses of the paper that were already present during the first submission