Neuroscience Letters.
(Elsevier)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 47 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 314 words (SD = 132) |
| Review quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 3 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 314 words (SD = 132) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Major Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | n/a |
| Helpfulness | n/a |
| Fairness | n/a |
| Overall quality | n/a |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
I was very pleasantly surprised by the speed of the evaluation process.
However, the reviewers did not seem very knowledgeable in the field of ERP research. They asked questions that led me believe they did not spend very much time reviewing the paper and also asked for changes that were based on information they missed (but were in the paper).
Perhaps because of this the paper went through very quickly.
I was very pleasantly surprised by the speed of the evaluation process.
However, the reviewers did not seem very knowledgeable in the field of ERP research. They asked questions that led me believe they did not spend very much time reviewing the paper and also asked for changes that were based on information they missed (but were in the paper).
Perhaps because of this the paper went through very quickly.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion