Reviews for "Thin Solid Films"

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
Thin Solid Films 8.6
weeks
11.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Thin Solid Films 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: It was not clear whether the reviewers recommended rejection or major revisions. Both reviewers provided detailed assessment with the list of parts, which needed correction, which implied that major revisions was their preferred verdict. However, the Editor rejected the manuscript. The context implies that our methodology was the major issue, especially the absence of XRD and Raman spectral analysis.
Thin Solid Films 3.6
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Thin Solid Films 11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Thin Solid Films 6.3
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Thin Solid Films 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was promptly, professionally. The article appeared in Scopus quickly labeled as "in press". But the administration of my university did not register the article as published until the output of a hard copy. Thus, the publication process took about 10 months.
Thin Solid Films 21.7
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Thin Solid Films 3.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process in TSF, as well as in other Elsevier journal, is organised fairly well, though sometimes it takes a rather long time.