Reviews for "Scientometrics"

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
Scientometrics 9.4 wks 9.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Rejected
Motivation: The review quality is good enough and they suggested good suggestions for improving the manuscript.
Scientometrics 7.0 wks 9.4 wks n/a 1 5 (excellent) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The timing for the review process and the quality of the review itself exceeded all expectations.
Scientometrics 5.9 wks 7.7 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: In general, asking only one reviewer may not be enough for ensuring the quality of a paper. However, in this particular case the review received was very good and considerably improved the manuscript.
Scientometrics 21.7 wks 21.7 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Scientometrics 3.0 wks 13.4 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Generally very good handling of the manuscript; first review report very good and instructive. Duration of second review round surprisingly long (10 weeks) given that the editor's decision after the first review round was "accept condition upon minor revisions".
Scientometrics 11.0 wks 15.0 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted
Scientometrics 8.7 wks 17.4 wks n/a 2 2 (moderate) 4 (very good) Accepted
Motivation: Swift review process. Both editor and reviewers focused on improving the manuscript. Generally positive experience.
Scientometrics 6.0 wks 6.0 wks n/a 1 3 (good) 3 (good) Accepted
Motivation: Review process was speedy and adequate. However, some editorial details had to be fixed (switching decimal commas to decimal points in figures, to comply with journal style) which proved to be very tardy due to misunderstandings and technical problems. This significantly slowed down the procedure of final acceptance of the article.