Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "Soft Matter"
| 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 | Year |
| Soft Matter | n/a | n/a | 18.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
| Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). They could make a better choice, though. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
| Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | n/a | n/a | 2.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
| Motivation: Thanks to the editorial boards for the very quick decision. They transferred it to an open-access journal (RSC-Advances). Otherwise, they could transfer it to a better none open-access journal. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | 5.0 weeks |
7.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2021 |
| Soft Matter | n/a | n/a | 6.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2020 |
| Soft Matter | 3.0 weeks |
4.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| Motivation: The review process was quick. The editors and reviewers were fair. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | 4.4 weeks |
7.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: The review rounds were (relatively) quick and the editor also responded quickly. Overall we're very pleased with the whole process. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | 2.9 weeks |
3.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| Soft Matter | 3.9 weeks |
4.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Motivation: The review process was quick and the comments made by the reviewers helped us improve the manuscript. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | 3.0 weeks |
6.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2017 |
| Motivation: While our manuscript was rejected, both editors and reviewers were reasonably fair and balanced, and suggested an alternative journal for publication. The manuscript was quickly accepted after transferring to another journal. Communication was quick and so was the review process. | ||||||||
| Soft Matter | n/a | n/a | 4.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2015 |
| Soft Matter | 5.0 weeks |
10.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2015 |