The LA experience is exactly what an author would wish for. Reviews are high quality and fast, Editors make decisions on the basis of scientific argument, and the production team is friendly and efficient.
My personal observation about LA is that our paper was critically peer reviewed for a constructive, speedy and high quality manner. Our research paper from a different perspective of built environment in manifestation of diabetes was received by peer reviewers very positively and constructively. We are highly satisfied.
Working with the editorial staff and reviewers for Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics was a positive experience. The online submission/revision process was easy and staff were readily available to answer any questions. Reviewers were knowledgeable, lending expert comments that allowed for improvement in content information. I highly recommend others practitioners and researchers to consider Libertas Academica journals for their next publication.
The process of submission and publishing was a great experience. During the few weeks from the submission to publication I have worked with high quality staff. In my opinion, the easy communication was the most important characteristic of Libertas and an important influence on the final quality of the article. I definitely recommend the publisher to my colleagues.
I very much enjoyed the experience of publishing with Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment. The editorial and review staff were very helpful and understanding throughout, even when a very large and complex project was being undertaken, and a range of subjects had to be reviewed. The editor was sympathetic and understanding of the author's responses, and this combined and coordinated interplay has allowed major conceptual advances to be made with major implications for the improvement of patient treatment.
My experience with Libertas Academica was very positive from submission to acceptance. The reviewers' comments were very interesting and constructive. The author interface was user-friendly and very effective. The publishing process was fast and convenient. I recommend this journal.
I was pleased to serve as a peer reviewer for Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics. Its scope will hopefully blur some of the lines that still exist between clinical and basic science. The diligence of the editorial staff ensures the review process is fair, fast and very well-organized. I highly recommend potential authors and reviewers to submit to and review for this journal.
The submission process for manuscript publication in Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research is as easy as A,B,C! Any minor hiccups I encountered were quickly addressed by Libertas' expert staff via prompt emails, and the timelines between initial submission and publication are surely the shortest on record! I will definitely be submitting future manuscripts to this journal, and look forward to working with their professional and expert team.
The submission process was made very simple and easy, and I found the journal's staff to be very receptive and helpful. The online process was very user-friendly. I hope to work with this journal again in the future.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my participation as a reviewer for Nutrition and Metabolic Insights. I am impressed by the quality of manuscripts submitted for consideration from all over the world. The online review submission process is very well organized and simple to use.
I highly recommend publication in Libertas Academia journals. The entire submission, review and publication process for our article in Clinical Medicine Insights: Dermatology was easy and quick. The reviews were very professional and helpful and the publication fees were reasonable. We also appreciate that our article is available online free of charge to anyone interested in it.
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2013 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)