Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
This journal always returns its peer review results within two months, and the comments are positive, so I think it's a very good journal.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were extremely helpful.
The review process was smooth and transparent.
The review process was smooth and transparent.
Motivation:
The review process was remarkably fast, and the feedback was both positive and constructive. Although I have had varied experiences with this journal in the past, this particular one was excellent. I will certainly consider submitting more manuscripts to QSR in the future.
Motivation:
Reviewers gave some really brainless comments. The journal asks authors to submit a Word document, and one reviewer edited the text to put questions inside the main text, not as a comment (so annoying). One reviewer took it upon themselves to reword a paragraph, and their writing was absolutely terrible. One reviewer wanted to know the molecular weight of the Tris I used because some of them have different molecular weights, apparently, and the molecular weight on my bottle of Tris matched the molecular weight of Tris on Wikipedia, Sigma, etc. So either these reviewers are buying sketchy reagents or have never actually stepped foot into a lab before. Every comment was easily addressable, but more than half were a waste of time due to the reviewers' incompetence and poor understanding of the English language.
Motivation:
Fast and professional process
Motivation:
Strong journal. We submitted a paper with a rare (niche) topic. The paper was highly technical. The journal secured a reviewer in two weeks but could not find a second a reviewer. They proceeded with a single review + inhouse reviewer comments. Strong handling. Efficient.
Motivation:
Wait times were reasonable, reviewers understood the the literature and had different sets of relevant expertise, and the vast majority of reviewer comments were fair and reasonable questions to pose. The manuscript has certaintly been improved following their input.
Motivation:
They could improve communication with authors regarding the status of the manuscript. The platform is not very informative and only indicates that the paper is "under review," without specifying whether all reviews are pending or if we are only waiting for one last reviewer. Additionally, I had expected a more thoroughly justified decision for rejecting the paper, especially since I received one positive and one negative review. I understand that the final decision rests with the Editor, but given the contrasting evaluations, it would have been helpful to receive a clearer explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
Motivation:
Editor closely followed the review process and pushed us to do the best possible paper. Excellent choice of reviewers, who were hard but constructive.
Motivation:
My overall experience with the IFLA Journal was positive. The review process was efficient, with the first decision (minor revision) communicated within a month. After submitting the revision, the manuscript was accepted within two days, which I greatly appreciated. However, the production phase at Sage experienced delays due to the manuscript being missing from their system. As a result, although the article was accepted on 21 February 2025, it was only published on 22 July 2025. While the review process was smooth and timely, improvements could be made in the production stage to avoid such delays.
Motivation:
This was my first publication with this journal. The editorial process takes time, but the reviews were of very high quality
Motivation:
Very professional and I benefited a lot from the peer review process.
Motivation:
The reviewer gave very detailed and useful suggestions on how to compare the findings with other countries and how to discuss health policies. The review process was clear and quick.
Motivation:
Great reviews, that clearly made the article better.
Motivation:
Very quick processing and good quality reviews alongside helpful communication by the editor. Very positive experience
Motivation:
The review process of this journal is highly efficient. The first round of review took less than three weeks, although it required major revisions. However, after we carefully revised the manuscript to address the reviewers’ comments, the second review's process was completed in under a week, and the manuscript was promptly accepted for publication.
Motivation:
The reviewers and editor provided valuable and constructive feedback to enhance the manuscript flow and clarity, and we sincerely appreciate their dedicated efforts.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient, and it was clear that the reviewers had topic knowledge and provided feedback that was relevant with the intention of improving it.