Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
4.3 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
5.0 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
2020
4.4 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Manuscript was sent to two reviewers. Reviews were insightful and helped improve the manuscript. Both suggested minor revision. The revised manuscript was accepted for publication.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
4.9 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Received two review reports, both requested major revision. Reviews were quite insightful and helped improve the manuscript. The revised manuscript was accepted.
4.7 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2017
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The first reviewer accepted with major revision, while the second one rejected with mentioning that "Although the study appears to have been done well, I do not believe it adds much new insight into the field"
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
We received reports of 3 reviewers. 2 reviewers made positive comments about the importance of our work and suggested some very useful revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Both of them recommend acceptance after some revisions (First reviewer - mijor, second - major). However, third reviewer totally misunderstood our work and made comments which were "strange" as well as claimed we "did no do anything new" and offered rejection of our work. The editor (Huimin Zhao) rejected our work immediately without giving any explanation.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Although it was rejected by the handling editor after first set of review, we answered all the questions/comments/suggestions made by two reviewers and resubmitted. Our manuscript went to the same handling editor and the editor rejected the manuscript promptly. Editor also wrote that "I did not invite for resubmission". For my further appeal to reconsider earlier decision, it was made clear that it is editor's subjective decision to reject the manuscript.
What happened at this point of time is more interesting and given in the following: Exactly on the same subject matter of the manuscript with significantly inferior quality, another manuscript was accepted around the same time (may be ten days before). When I pointed out this fact to the Editor and handling editor, I was told that, they never compare published manuscripts to the submitted manuscripts. I asked further, what is the bench mark you are giving to your potential authors. I never got any direct reply to this question from either Editor or handling editor. It was frustrating.
When we submitted this manuscript to another best journal, it was a cake walk for us and it was accepted and published.
What happened at this point of time is more interesting and given in the following: Exactly on the same subject matter of the manuscript with significantly inferior quality, another manuscript was accepted around the same time (may be ten days before). When I pointed out this fact to the Editor and handling editor, I was told that, they never compare published manuscripts to the submitted manuscripts. I asked further, what is the bench mark you are giving to your potential authors. I never got any direct reply to this question from either Editor or handling editor. It was frustrating.
When we submitted this manuscript to another best journal, it was a cake walk for us and it was accepted and published.