Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I had to thoroughly revise, but do believe that the manuscript improved a lot through the review process. All in all, reviews were fair and useful. The first two review rounds could have been a bit faster in my opinion. I note that this took place during a change of editors for this journal.
Motivation:
The review process was efficient and received comments relevant.
Motivation:
Review process was very slow. Two reviews were obtained but lacked critical content. The total length of all reviews was less than one page. Despite no major problems being found with the ms. the editors decided to reject it since they did not feel it was a good fit for the journal. The editors should not have sent the paper for review if it was not deemed a good fit. Almost 6 months were wasted with this review process.
Motivation:
Editor asked ME why I didn't 'remind him' that the paper was under review. Editor didn't bother commenting, and submitted one rather odd review, that he had sat on for many months, as cause for the rejection.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Reviewer #1: The paper may be accepted for publication by considering the following points
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Motivation:
After 10 months of review process they rejected the paper only with one reviewer comments and the reason was this :"conceptual novelty and thematic balance of the research published in the journal as well as the limitation in number of pages permitted yearly by the publisher"
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It was a long process, but overall the feedback was positive and improved the quality of the document.
Motivation:
Significant changes needed to be done to the manuscript, but after doing this it was accepted by the reviewers with minor revision.
Motivation:
The reviews were helpful and fair, but the review process took longer than most journals.
Motivation:
Fast and efficient process. A few lines from the Editor showing that the paper was at least quickly read.
Motivation:
First review process for my paper takes only two months but the revised version was held for more than 6 months. I have found that it was happened for a special issue which made them very busy. In Overall, I like this journal.