Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
5 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The review process was rather rigorous, but at the same time, fair, constructive, and rapid.
20.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Besides the 2 external reviewers, the editor in chief and the associate editor also provide a comprehensive review of the paper on both aspects, content and form. The first review round was a bit long but very comprehensive. The handling of the revised manuscript was quite efficient.
8.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process is excellent. I had fast replay by editor. The review notes were detailed and very useful in order to improve the manuscrit.
12.9 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The length of the first review round seemed excessively long, but all responses thereafter were dealt with in good time.
18.1 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: This journal is very meticulous. In addition to doing a thorough job of vetting the scientific content of my article, the editor and his staff made sure that all journal requirements were adhered to completely before accepting manuscripts for publication. And they went about the process very professionally.
8.3 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The two reviews for my manuscript were excellent. However, I would have liked to see more interaction between the the anonymous reviewers in terms of responding to some of their more content-based analyses and comments. It seemed as though my revisions were signed off by an editor, rather than by the reviewers. So this part of the review process could be clarified. Essentially, I would have liked to ensure that my response to some theoretical challenges was acceptable and/or justified correctly by the reviewers themselves.

I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
21.7 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The reviews were point full and improved the MS
34.7 weeks
35.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
29.6 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Review process was very long, with no information.