Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.
Motivation:
the review process was extremely long.
Motivation:
The process was quite fast but the report was not serious and quite offensive.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
Motivation:
Two x 30 month review rounds after the first review only suggested minor revisions. In the second round there was one clearly biased reviewer who did not seem to understand the aim of the research and how it differed from the context of their own research (which they wanted us to cite heavily). The editor was clearly out of depth, seemed to have trouble finding and following up on expert reviewers, and in the end deferred to one very biased reviewer.
Motivation:
The editor decision was quick, and it considered the reviewers' comments and my responses.
I was also particularly impressed about the speed of the proof creation, and the changes I asked to make on the proof. In few days after receving the corrected proof, the article was published online.
I was also particularly impressed about the speed of the proof creation, and the changes I asked to make on the proof. In few days after receving the corrected proof, the article was published online.
8.7 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I have fixed several bugs that existed in the original version of the paper's text.
According to referee's notes I have corrected the Introduction of the paper and added
a few additional references in the bibliography.
According to referee's notes I have corrected the Introduction of the paper and added
a few additional references in the bibliography.
Motivation:
Editor noted in his acceptance that the paper was "accepted as is, a rarity at this journal". Consequently we didn't get to see the peer review reports, even though the paper had spent over seven months in the review process.
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments were contradictory.
Motivation:
The whole process was very smooth and professional. The editors were very willing to work with you to get the manuscript accepted. They were also very good at keeping me up-to-date with where the manuscript was at in the review process. Everything was very transparent.
Motivation:
Three reviewers judged very differently about the manuscript, one suggested minor changes and made valueable comments, one was intermediate, suggested major revisions, but from the report it appears that this was not a specialist in the field, the third referee recommended rejection, although there was only one major point that was criticized. We wrote a rebuttal to the points raised by the referees and asked for a resubmission, which was allowed, although the initial rejection. We then re-worked the manuscript including many new analyses.
Motivation:
Reviewer turnaround was very efficient. Statistical review was very thorough.
Motivation:
In general, the review process was OK. The total duration was reasonable given this field of research.
Motivation:
Quick and transparent process; comments from referees and editor were very helpful to improve the paper
Motivation:
immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
Motivation:
I had to wait more than one year for a decision after the first review round.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.
All the comments by the reviewers were addressed in the second round but the editors decided to send to the reviewers again. One of the reviewers rejected the paper using completely new arguments that had never been raised before referring to points that were in the original paper.