Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The peer-review process is relatively fast, a maximum of one month each round. However, It takes one week after submission for them to send an email regarding a video award. It seems like the review process only starts after this email. In my submission, the associated editor of the second round was not the same as the initial submission. New reviewers were assigned, which resulted in an unnecessary 3rd round. The quality of the reviewers varies, but I found their comments very useful. They had read the paper and tried their best to understand. For those in the final stage of the Ph.D., this journal is very helpful since we cannot wait, like, four months for a first feedback.
5.4 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 2.0 days
Drawn back
5.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
After the first round of review, we requested more time to make modifications than the 10 days proposed. The editor was quick in replying and accepting our request.
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The only imperfection was in the first review round, in which one of the reviewers sent a review about a different paper from ours. The editor was quick in contacting the reviewer and asking for the correct review.
Motivation:
Reviewers requested spot corrections, and the response time was fast.