Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
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.
Motivation:
The review comment showed that the paper has been investigated by the professional expert in the topic of the paper. Their constructive comments help us to enhance the paper quality greatly.
Motivation:
I feel that waiting over one year for a rejection and not getting a review is not appropriate.
Motivation:
I received three reviews. Two were very enthusiastic suggesting accepting the manuscript after minor revisions, the third was more critical, pointing to problems and missing points that were actually addressed in the manuscript.
Motivation:
The actual review process was fine but the editorial handling of our manuscript was not as I would expect it from a journal that is "commited to rapid editorial decisions and publications" as stated in Nature's peer-review policy. The decision on our second revision was "Accept after minor changes" which only included to ensure that the manuscript does fit within the guidelines. As our manuscript was already formatted according to the guidelines, we stated this in our answer letter and submitted the manuscript again without changing a single sentence in the manuscript itself. Nevertheless, the editor needed again more than two months to accept our manuscript. In addition, during the first four weeks after acceptance nothing happend at all until I asked them when we will receive our proofs. Only after this inquiry I received another e-mail stating that our manuscript had now been passed to the production which needed again roughly two months to finally publish our article. All in all, I was fairly disappointed about the manuscript handling of such a prestigious journal.