Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Drawn back
2024
Motivation: After a year and a half after initial submission, and 2 rounds of reviews, we kept receiving the same reviews from the same reviewer, despite having politely replied multiple times explaining why we were in disagreement with the reviewer. The reviewer fundamentally disagreed with us on some aspects, and they would not budge despite two rounds of reviews and two rebuttal letters.
The editors have been APPALLING throughout all this, never responding to our emails and basically ignoring us for the whole time. We ended up withdrawing the manuscript, and even this took months, and was only accomplished when we contacted the editorial office (specifically Lizzy Seal, who was nice and helpful).
Do not publish with this journal! Stay clear! So many other better outputs around
25.9 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Given the length of the review process, the reviews were of low quality, some of them just stating typographical errors, and one was just a few sentences long. The editor himself, it has to be said, has provided the most detailed feedback and thus made a great effort to make up for the disappointing reviews.
The typesetters introduced some errors at critical points in the manuscript. The article appeared swiftly as an online first publication but it seems to take around two years until it will actually appear in an issue.
26.0 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
2012
Motivation: Time between submission and reviewer reports too long and difficult communication with editorial office when trying to determine the status of the submission.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation: Reasons given for rejection were not detailed enough.