Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review timeline of Acta Materialia is excruciatingly slow. Other than that, the editors and the reviewers are very fair in accommodating our responses to the final version of the manuscript.
Motivation:
After the first round of review, the article was rejected. Although one of the reviewers' comments was helpful and well-intentioned, the other's was brief and dismissive. We spent over two months revising and expanding the article in response to the reviewers' feedback. We then submitted a revised version with detailed responses, and the article was finally accepted as it is.
Motivation:
The publisher provides a clear timeline to help authors keep track of the manuscript's status. The submission interface is easy to use.
Motivation:
Very responsive editors and excellent review process.
Motivation:
Our handling editor was very responsive and extremely comprehensive. I think all the review reports were also of good quality and I am very happy with the feedbacks we received on this manuscript which truly strengthen our findings.
Motivation:
Turnaround time for reviews was much faster than expected, especially given the extremely high quality of the reviews from scholars who were clearly extremely knowledgeable in the field.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
Motivation:
The review process took a long time; the reason for the reviewer's proposed rejection was not fully understood.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
Motivation:
Editor and reviewers were quick in their decision. The manuscript was rejected because the editor judged its topic to be too preliminar to perform a SR, but reviewers' comments were overall positive. Despite the rejection, a good experience.
Motivation:
The reviewers provide thorough and comprehensive insights into the study topic and help strengthen the study for publication.
Motivation:
Handling and communication concerning the manuscript were quick. However, some of the reviewer reports were unusual. The first reviewer had valuable inputs, however, at times requested additional work that would have gone far beyond the scope of the presented manuscript or which was simply not applicable/feasible for the investigated specimen. However, the second reviewer did not really seem to care about the work, as their suggestions were more of a general nature (extend discussion without specific inputs, add highlights, add a graphical abstract).
Motivation:
A quite long review period with questionable reviews.
Motivation:
Fast and good review, good production time.
Motivation:
Reviews were most reasonable (and somewhat forgiving) with thankfully much attention devoted toward the theoretical aspects and strengths. The time for review was reasonable (<2 months), although there was somewhat of a delay between completion of reviews and editorial decision (approx. 2-3 weeks).
Motivation:
Very swift and professional handling, good communication, critical reviews with focus on the substance.
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.