Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
49.0 weeks
49.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
2017
Motivation: The editors were helpful, but the review process took much longer than the projected 4 to 6 months. After almost a year, only one of the reviews had any comments to make, and they were rather superficial. I realise this is not the journal's fault but rather a defect of the peer review process in general, but it nevertheless needs to be stated.