Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
5.0 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
5.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
6.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
My initial submission was rejected with option to resubmit, which was always my intention. To me, this seemed a slightly harsh decision as the reviewers were both positive on the concepts and study, but requested major changes (which I was able to implement in good time - 6 weeks, which was less than the review time). Irrespective, the reviewer comments certainly contributed to the betterment of the article, which I thank them for. Following my resubmission of the article, the review process was very smooth, with the only exception of some terminology misunderstandings by one reviewer leading to the same comment appearing in the reviews of the manuscript.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
6.6 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
18.3 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
4.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The review process was overall very good and fast.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
16.1 weeks
27.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Longest review process I ever experienced, which made the overall process very unsatisfactory, despite the reasonable quality of the review reports.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor board member did provide some constructive comments and alternative journals for future submission.
11.1 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviews were very helpful and the overall process was very fast.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
After a positive answer on our presubmission enquiry, surprisingly, the paper was rejected by the editorial board member who deemed it "too specialized".
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Excellent and timely handling. Good comments and the editor made some additional good points.
Proofreading stage was also very impressive and of high quality.
Proofreading stage was also very impressive and of high quality.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The reviews were really helpful and encouraging, but the editor rejected the paper due to lack of impact.
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
10.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted