Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.3 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
4.9 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
In overall the review process was ok, but I would expect opinion of more than one reviewer.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
As per my knowledge, the majority number of review reports are positive then they are willing to publish. But in this case, the editor is claiming that they need all (in my case 3 review reports) reviewers should give positive (instead of majority reports) to proceed further for the acceptance of the work to publish.
It is very strange!!!!!
It is very strange!!!!!
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The experience with the journal was good. Three reviewers were assigned and a total of more than 10 questions were raised including the grammer. All questions were answered and sent back to the editor. Result: Accepted without further revision
9.9 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I received constructive comments from reviewers, which could improve the quality of our paper. Although the review took a little longer, the overall review process was not bad.
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were indicting that the reviewer have not gone through the manuscript well enough and have given his/her advise for shake of formality.