Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
3 reports
Motivation: The review process was very rapid. Three positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable. It appears that the review process is handled by the managing editor and not the journal editor (for this special issue). I got the impression from aspects of the process that the journal managing editor pushes articles through, independent of reviewer comments. For example, they offered to put my article on a list of articles for the special issue, prior to the peer review occurring, which seemed quite suspicious. Thus, I am a bit suspicious of the integrity of the peer review process of this journal and would not submit there again.