Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
7.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Review process has been really well handled by both the editor and the reviewers. Selected reviewers were relevant, and their comments and suggestions were more than useful.
Motivation:
It seems to take much longer to get a review than advertised on their website. I can only assume it's just hard to find reviewers these days. Otherwise I would recommend submitting to this journal because the review comments seemed like they actually read the paper.
Motivation:
I don't know how they editor made up their mind on this review report. A major critique was that the experiment was not pre-registered (fair enough), but then the same person encouraged us to run kind of every possible interaction to see if "there is something".
Motivation:
Took almost 4 months to get reviewer comments. At least they transferred it to Nature Comms with acceptance after revision.
Motivation:
The interactive review system was useful. However the duration of uploading reviewer reports may vary. One took like 4-5 days but another one took 20 days with 2 time extension. The editor was helpful in progress.
Motivation:
Editor responded rather fast!
The reviews were constructive.
The reviews were constructive.
11.7 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
16.3 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
7.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The editorial office was very fast, the article was under review the day after I submitted it. The peer review process, although involving three reports, was also very quick. The feedback was very constructive. The post-acceptance process was also smooth.
Motivation:
Fast and targeted review-process. The reviewer feedback was constructive and really improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
I thought that the peer review process was outstanding. The initial decision came very quickly (only ~35 days after submission) with meticulous reviews written by three reviewers in addition to a statistical methods reviewer. The editors also made very helpful comments about how to frame the study in such a way that would be more applicable to a general cardiology audience. The revisions that were requested by the EIC, associate editor, and the four peer reviewers were extensive, and the revision process was certainly more difficult and time-consuming than writing the initial paper itself. However, I believe that their comments helped us make the paper significantly stronger. In all, I was very pleased with the speed and quality of the reviews. If I ever happen to write another paper with a message that would be a good fit for a flagship journal such as this, I will certainly submit it to JACC again.
Motivation:
It was due to the prompt response.
Motivation:
The overall process of publishing with EJN was very smooth and quite fast. The reviewer's reports were fair and properly argumented, without necessarily providing any strikingly novel insights. I found strange that the journal gave out the names of the reviewers at the end of the review process - I think the lack of anonymity might discourage reviewers from being too critical, and even discourage some from reviewing at all. It is good that the review content is public, but the names shouldn't be public. Other than this I really liked publishing in this journal.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
No APC journal (free to publish) could be considered a slow editorial process; however, it is rigorous and I am usually satisfied by reviewer comments. Editors changing your text line by line may not be ideal, but this also shows their engagement, can't comment negatively on that.
If you are in a rush to publish, not the correct place to publish a normal article. Allow 6-8 months minimum after the acceptance of your article.
If you are in a rush to publish, not the correct place to publish a normal article. Allow 6-8 months minimum after the acceptance of your article.
Motivation:
The submission process went smoothly, and the reviewers offered constructive feedback that helped refine the manuscript, making it clearer and stronger.
Motivation:
The editors were thoughtful and mostly clear in the process of submission and review.
Motivation:
This was a fast turnaround, but I cannot really understand the reasoning behind the rejection. One reviewer essentially suggested we clarify a key term, the other wanted some papers cited and suggested two specific robustness checks. I guess neither of the reviewers was excited about the manuscript...
Motivation:
The review process has been straightforward and there has been a very good communication with the editor.