Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Handling at every stage was quick. We got 2 reviewers. One of them clearly understood the scope of the paper and offered to provide additional experiments that added more detail and some novelty to the manuscript. This was done. The other reviewer declared that he is specialised in another field (which is a connected field) and criticised certain details of our method. This reviewer requested to provide additional check-ups relevant for their field, which were in our opinion not needed with our subject. However, we provided the requested check-ups (none of them influenced conclusions) and the manuscript was finally accepted after another textual change.
Motivation:
takes 4 months for external review and got rejected, too long
Motivation:
The editor suggested to transfer to Adv. Func. Mater. based on the reviewers' reports. It was fine besides the reviewing time that was more than 10 weeks.
Motivation:
We were lucky to have a fair editor. Although one of the reviewers came up with an unconstructive criticism during the second review round, the editor decided to accept the paper after our response.
Motivation:
Overall, a fair review process. Just rather long processing time.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments are professional and constructive. The overall editorial process is timely.
Motivation:
The comments are overall constructive and professional.
Motivation:
Professional and friendly communication with editor, reviewers were high quality and looked at the manuscript throughout, good suggestions.
Motivation:
The Peer review was good. But the manuscript was with the editor since the editor could not find peer-reviewers. After the recommendation, the paper was sent out for review. After corrections the paper was finally accepted. The proofs parts was like another review which took quite some effort and time.
Motivation:
Fast review, very good revisions that really aimed to help. Reviewers had good comments so the rejection was a little bit unexpected, but we understand as it is a competetive journal. Editor argued that the corrections suggested by the referees would turn the manuscript too long for this journal, and thus they recommended transference to another journal.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 107.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The submission process was relatively straightforward, the review time was reasonable, and reviewers' comments were thoughtful and and relevant for the manuscript. It was also much appreciated that the second revision (which only included a relatively small change) was reviewed within a day and a notification of acceptance was sent out.
Motivation:
One review was rather unreasonable in asking more of everything, way beyond what the page limit would allow--not that anything was particularly bad, but nothing was enough for them. The other reviewer was more pointed with mostly relevant feedback.
Motivation:
The review process was very smooth and quick. We took a while to resubmit the manuscript because we had to wait for some reagents to arrive in order to carry out one of the experiments suggested in the first round of revision. Our manuscript improved a lot as a result of the reviewers' suggestions.
Motivation:
There was a delay as one reviewer could not provide the comments in time and they had to seek another reviewer. The editorial office was very professional and informed me of this situation soon after it happened. Otherwise, everything was smooth,