Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
31.3 weeks
64.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2026
Motivation:
While the initial round of reviews provided constructive feedback, the overall management of the manuscript was extremely inefficient. The process lasted 18 months in total, with more than 7 months spent waiting for a decision on the revised version. Ultimately, the editorial office admitted they were unable to secure any reviewers for the second round and that the handling editor would not take a responsibility for a decision based on the existing revisions. Despite the polite communication from the Journal Manager, the lack of proactive editorial handling forced me to withdraw the manuscript to avoid further indefinite delays. I advise colleagues to be cautious regarding the current administrative backlog of this journal.
13.0 weeks
13.2 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The subject editor had problems finding more than one willing referee, so acted him/her-self as referee. Took some time though.
19.3 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The review process took far too long for a rejection, and the reviewers did not gave much more information on improving the MS. It should not have taken so long. I will not consider this Journal for a future MS submission.