Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Although the reviewers provided constructive feedback, the overall process was unsatisfactory. The review took almost 10 weeks, which is much longer than stated 4-week target for a first decision. The rejection was based not on scientific flaws but on scope and readership fit - a point that could have been identified at the initial editorial screening, saving considerable time. Finally, the suggestion to transfer to an open-access journal was not viable in our case.
Motivation:
4 months for a desk reject is very disappointing.
Motivation:
That's how I like desk rejection, if I can say so: a quick and clear decision (out of journal scope) and half a sentence where the editor thinks we may have more luck.
Motivation:
A desk reject with an invitation to resubmit if we clarify why the paper is needed. Nice!
Motivation:
The submission and paper handling by the journal were smooth and (surprisingly) fast
Unfortunately, the reviews were not as useful as expected:
One of the reviewers did not comment on our work and only requested that we add five papers to our references (with no common author and of moderate relevance). The other one raised strong but undeveloped doubts about our hypotheses and protocol, with no specific details or identified questions, and accepted the paper in a laconic manner after our (argumented) response.
Unfortunately, the reviews were not as useful as expected:
One of the reviewers did not comment on our work and only requested that we add five papers to our references (with no common author and of moderate relevance). The other one raised strong but undeveloped doubts about our hypotheses and protocol, with no specific details or identified questions, and accepted the paper in a laconic manner after our (argumented) response.
Motivation:
Communication throughout the process was efficient, and feedback were timely and constructive.
Motivation:
The peer review process at Chemosphere was extremely slow. It took over a month for our paper to be assigned to an editor. Eventually after several email exchanges with the editor, they identified peer reviewers for the article. The final peer review comments were quite straightforward and fair; however, we ultimately decided to withdraw the paper because Chemosphere was delisted from Web of Science.
Motivation:
Reviewer's comments were scientifically sound.