Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The whole process was very smooth when compared to other journals. Always had good response with RSC journals
Motivation:
Review time was not short, but reviews were minor and helpful
Motivation:
The Journal of Fish has a rapid editorial process. I indicate fish researchers to try publish in this periodical.
Motivation:
The initial review took around 2 months, allowed 2 months for revision and resubmittion.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were both reasonable and clearly stated in order to revise. Review and editorial process was swift and decisive. Overall, a very efficient and time-effective process whilst remaining thorough.
Motivation:
One gave an acceptance and two reviewers raised novelty problems with compliments about the solid and robust experimental results. Editors play an important role as judges. They accepted our paper.
Motivation:
I received three very constructive reviews in each round of the submission process. As a PhD student, I was very happy with the fast review process!
Motivation:
The editor-in-chief thoroughly reviewed my manuscript and sent it to two independent reviewers, both of whom provided highly constructive feedback that helped enhance the quality of the manuscript. The editorial team also handled the manuscript efficiently, and overall, I am very satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were reasonable and helpful to refine my manuscript. However, the second-round review took much more time than usual, so I pushed the editor many times to know the status of the review.
Motivation:
There were three reviewers with minor comments.
Motivation:
Although there were a total of 5 referee reports, each were really fast and yet very detailed. The reports helped us to improve the article a lot by removing some extra hypotheses. It was a very pleasant experience!
Motivation:
Positive opinion of the speed and quality of the review process.
Motivation:
Fair review - they identified clear weaknesses, which were mostly manageable, although too frequent or widespread for the editor to warrant a revision.
Motivation:
Having five reviewers was quite helpful. While this resulted in many comments to address, the quality and breadth of the reviewer comments helped strengthen the final submission. The overall experience will help us in future submissions.
Motivation:
go ahead man
Motivation:
We went through an intensive review process, which greatly improved the manuscript. In the end, we were still rejected, and although the authors disagreed with the main point of the reviewer that suggested rejection, it was a careful and thought-out review. We also appreciated the input and care from the editor, who in the first round of reviews gave detailed and productive comments, after split reviews, and in the last round of review, gave a proper justification for rejection.
Motivation:
The review timeline of Acta Materialia is excruciatingly slow. Other than that, the editors and the reviewers are very fair in accommodating our responses to the final version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
After the first round of review, the article was rejected. Although one of the reviewers' comments was helpful and well-intentioned, the other's was brief and dismissive. We spent over two months revising and expanding the article in response to the reviewers' feedback. We then submitted a revised version with detailed responses, and the article was finally accepted as it is.