Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
14.7 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
12.9 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The formatting requirements for the journal are somewhat onerous, and would make me hesitate before submitting there again (e.g. strict limitations on number of figures with no option for supplementary materials, unusual format for figures, integrated results/discussion sections). However, the review process was relatively speedy and requests from the editors were reasonable. The editors were diplomatic about reviewer comments deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
17.4 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Review process is so long!
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2017
Motivation: The review process is too long compared to other journals.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.
21.9 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The whole process took a reasonable time (a bit more than 6 months) and review quality was good and improved the manuscript. I appreciate that the journal is also asking to improve the paper visibility by adding an image and a blog post.
14.7 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The editors at this journal are lovely and helpful with good constructive advise. However the whole process takes too long overall compared to other journals and so while I have enjoyed publishing in this journal (four times now) I will likely try elsewhere with my papers next time, for a quicker result.
10.4 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
12.9 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2018
26.0 weeks
42.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
Motivation: I think the revision process was perfect and allowed me learn more about writing and submitting scientific work. Thanks
15.6 weeks
34.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
17.3 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
15.3 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
15.0 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
15.2 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
2017
20.4 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The only critique I have is that the first review took so long. The comments and advice of the reviewers as well as of the managing editor/editor-in-chief were all very helpful.
26.6 weeks
42.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
2018
14.0 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2018
16.4 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The review process was generally good. A bit quicker would have been good, but all communication with the editorial support was excellent. In addition one of the reviewer comments were good, but obviously a bit biased in that they clearly wanted several of their own papers cited.
15.0 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The review process was very quick.
When we needed clarifications by the Editorial Office on the review process, we received answers to our questions very quickly and effectively.
The reviewers chosen by the Journal were able to improve the quality of the paper, suggesting interesting modifications.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
2017
Motivation: + The main difficulty was to find reviewers
+ Once the first revision process came, the subsequent revisions were fine
+ The final result was useful to ameliorate our manuscript
11.1 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2017
3.3 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
5
Accepted
2017
12.3 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: The review process was quite rapid considering the length of our manuscript. Reviewer comments were constructive and well-articulated; the quality of our manuscript was very much improved after taking those comments into consideration. The formatting of the reviewer comments occasionally made it difficult to decipher them. Slightly clearer formatting, which separates out the different points a bit more, may, therefore, be helpful in the future.
13.7 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2017
20.1 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: This long-term experiment was very complex, and this journal required a stringent synthesis of the most important outcomes. It was not easy to present 30 years of data in a reduced number of figures and table allowed by the journal. However, I believe that the final results was rewarding. Also the editorial office devoted much effort in evaluating wether this manuscript was prepared in compliance with the instructions for authors.
8.7 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
23.7 weeks
29.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: This journal was very good to work with and the reviewers' and editors' comments were very helpful in creating a stronger article. The editorial team was very responsive to inquiries about the process, as well as the timeline of review, along with other inquiries. The only thing that was slow was waiting for the initial editorial and peer reviews and decision from the time of the first submission. Once we received reviews and feedback, however, the process was quite quick and the amount of time given by the editorial team for revisions was generous (4 weeks).
20.1 weeks
28.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Reviews were constructive and useful and I really like the journal. My only wish was that the initial review process would be a lot quicker. It took 20 weeks to hear back after the first submission. This is for graduate students and postdocs too long, and not desirable for those for whom publication pressure is not that high either.
15.4 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
21.0 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: This is my second publication in ASDE. As was the case with the first one, the review process was, overall, very good experience. The initial reviewers made very useful comments and suggestions that helped a lot to improve the work. The subsequent rounds of review were mostly textual or editorial in nature. They were dragged on to ''R3'' due to specific journal requirements, some of which I consider a little strange. An example is the requirement to have a Figure (photo) in the Introduction Section of the manuscript. While subsequent schedules for re-evaluating revised manuscripts were great in their timing, I strongly suggest to improve on the time between initial submission and first review result. My first manuscript with ASDE also suffered from delayed initial review.
8.7 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
13.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
8.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Prompt reviewing process. Constructive comments from reviewers and editor which helped us improve the article.
12.6 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
17.7 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The review process was excellent, except for the duration of the first review which was really long (almost 18 weeks!). However, at the end of the review process the manuscript was improved a lot.
15.9 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The reviews were helpful and fair, but the review process took longer than most journals.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2015
11.4 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016