Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
31.9 weeks
42.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The first review round took a long time, but since I was on maternity leave for most of that time it did not matter so much. Moreover, when I contacted the editorial office to ask them about the progress of my submission, apologies were made and satisfactory explanations given. The review reports I received were very helpful and they really improved the paper.
20.3 weeks
32.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
14.6 weeks
23.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
First round of the review process took a bit long but overall the reviewers provided constructive and helpful feedback.
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Two reviewers were divided and editor did not want to advise a major revision of the paper.
7.6 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
It was not the fastest process, but I was very content with the way the journal handled the submission and the quality of the reviews.
17.0 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The process was well organized, although the first review round could have been shorter