Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: High reputation of the Regional Editor, the reviewing and revising processes follow clear schedule, the reviewers are attentive, professional, helpful and polite.
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Rejected
0.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very agile review process. Reviewer's comments were irregular, some of them were very useful and insightful, others were trivial.
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
13.0 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
364 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
19.5 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Rejected
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
Motivation: The referee report was terrible: unsympathetic in the extreme, rude in tone, with various unmotivated objections.
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
1.0 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.4 weeks
36.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Accepted
Motivation: A first decision (major revision) was made available to the author 4 months after initial submission following to several remiders and was based on the evaluation of one Associate Editor. A final decision was taken 4.5 months after submitting the revised paper upon repeated reminders to the Editor-in_Chief herself.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Helpful comments from editor
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: Submission involved mailing paper version to Italy.
Article initially rejected, despite positive reviewer comments. Request was made for editor to reconsider, who agreed to a resubmission (after 6 weeks of consideration). Revised manuscript submitted, addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript returned to 1 reviewer and subsequently rejected.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
Motivation: The review was inconsistent in its outlook and poorly expressed. It should have been sent to a second reviewer.
n/a
n/a
42 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: While the editors originally promised feedback within a month and a half, and they only got back to me after three months, their message showed that the article went through a proper internal review process and the reasons for rejections were fair and absolutely acceptable.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Drawn back
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Drawn back
Motivation: It should not take 4 months to get a decision.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
36 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected within three days, we initially submitted a presubmission inquiry on March 13 but never received a response.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Rejected
Motivation: The reviews we received were quite positive and constructive, but the editor rejected the manuscript anyway.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Although the final submission was May 19, I actually submitted it on May 5, after which the editors asked me to provide additional information which created further delays. In my opinion, if they were going to reject the paper they could have done so without asking for the additional information and causing this delay.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editorial decision took 4 weeks, than rejected without review. An inquiry after three weeks if a review process had been initiated was not answered. Standard rejection letter with reference to "immediate" (!!!) editorial decision.
17.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The submission process was organized, automated, transparent and efficient.
28.2 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
1
Rejected
Immediately accepted after 4.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
Motivation: My paper was accepted within one month. This is probably because it was not sent to external referees. At least I did not receive any referee reports.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: My paper was rejected by an associate editor without sending it to external reviewers. Although I believe my paper to be of similar quality as other papers that do get published in the journal, I was happy that it took only about a week to receive the rejection message. So little time was lost.
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
34.7 weeks
65.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Drawn back