Latest review
First review round: 8.9 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
Editor was very responsive and proactive. Editorial office or system was very sensitive and flagged any and all potential threats to double blind review, no matter how minor. In some cases, no additional changes had to be made despite triggering the "identifying information potentially present" alarm, however this was after all authors were notified -and these types of notifications were automatic and frequent. I wish the system would insert the "triggers" in reports to the author so we could remedy the problem more expeditiously. Still the editorial office was responsive to email questions.
