Journal of Chromatography A.
(Elsevier)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 90 days (SD = 36) |
| Review length | 319 words (SD = 144) |
| Review quality | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 6 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 319 words (SD = 144) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Helpfulness | 4.2 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Fairness | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 175 words (SD = 9) |
| Decision | Minor Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
This paper was a short communications, and took a long time for the review process. The paper was accepted, eventually, but the reviews were hostile, especially reviewer #2. The reviewer does raise some good points, but both the reviewers were not familiar with this particular area of research, and were chromatographists in the broader sense. This lead to them not understanding a few points but that was made clear in the revision. JCA is an excellent journal, but I think that they should send papers for review to people who work in the same/similar field. For example, a researcher might be working on a specialized area of liquid chromatography. His/her papers shouldn't be sent to a reviewer who specializes in gas chromatography.
This paper was a short communications, and took a long time for the review process. The paper was accepted, eventually, but the reviews were hostile, especially reviewer #2. The reviewer does raise some good points, but both the reviewers were not familiar with this particular area of research, and were chromatographists in the broader sense. This lead to them not understanding a few points but that was made clear in the revision. JCA is an excellent journal, but I think that they should send papers for review to people who work in the same/similar field. For example, a researcher might be working on a specialized area of liquid chromatography. His/her papers shouldn't be sent to a reviewer who specializes in gas chromatography.
· Overall quality rating: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
This was my first article to JCA, and my first paper ever. The reviews were fast, very suggestive and positive. The reviewers made good suggestions, and the suggestions that they made strengthened the paper overall.
This was my first article to JCA, and my first paper ever. The reviews were fast, very suggestive and positive. The reviewers made good suggestions, and the suggestions that they made strengthened the paper overall.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion