Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The journal requests that reviews be completed within 3 weeks, so it's disappointing that this process took nearly 16 weeks. Typesetting/proofing introduced errors into the manuscript. The editors were flexible about the timing of publication.
Motivation:
The second round took a bit too long
Motivation:
First review process took to long
Motivation:
Some of the reviews were useful, some not..
Motivation:
My may concer about to this manuscript and this Journal is that I received an extra reviewer report by a new reviewer after resubmit the paper revised according to the comments of the two first reviewers. Thus, the paper was published with a big delay time. More than one year.
Motivation:
The first reviews had not exactly grasped the subject of my paper, whereas this was more correctly appreciated after reading the revised version and the responses to the reviewers.
Motivation:
Some methodological aspects of the study were not correct and the reviewers' suggestions were very useful
Motivation:
No additional comments. .