Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
47.7 weeks
73.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
6.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
17.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Accepted
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
1.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review report were essential and valuable. The review procedure was relatively fast.
30.0 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
1
Rejected
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
21.7 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
7.9 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
14.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The process was quite shift and the editor provided helpful comments about how to weigh and address reviewers' comments.
3.6 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was fast and the reviewers comments mostly contributed to improve the article.
13.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
8.7 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
3.6 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: I was completely satisfied with the Editorial handling of that manuscript. Although it was submitted as a Letter and finally accepted as a Regular Article, the publication process was quick and efficient.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was promptly, professionally. The article appeared in Scopus quickly labeled as "in press". But the administration of my university did not register the article as published until the output of a hard copy. Thus, the publication process took about 10 months.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
17.6 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was ok, although they were not very detailed. All in all, the whole process took much too long, it appeared that the editor was very slow in dealing with the submission.
3.3 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: Very quick review process. The review was reasonably detailed.
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was handled very quickly. Two reviewers, reasonable quality of review reports.
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Sensible reviewer choice and thoughtful editor, not a handling robot.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: excellent review process
4.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I appreciated the professionally of the overall process and the attempt top increase the quality of the research published on it
6.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: It helped us to express our findings better.
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
30.4 weeks
33.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
29.9 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The first referee report suffered a significant delay (7 months). After the re-submission of my paper, the process was quick and efficient.