Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
25.9 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
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
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.