Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
Knowledgeable and fair review. Evidently engaged reviewers. Blind review process
Motivation:
The whole process took a bit longer than expected, mostly because it is getting harder and harder to get reviewers that are willing to peer-review the publications. This might be an overall problem in the scientific community, especially for journals that, even though have a high impact factor, are not that "well known". Overall, we were in contact with the editors, who kept us updated on the review process.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.
PD: If you are trying to publish your work quickly, I would maybe advise another journal.