Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Reviewer #1: The paper may be accepted for publication by considering the following points
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
Reviewer #2:It is very interesting and meaningful. But the paper needs to be improved in a more presentable way
Reviewer #3: The results are interesting and meaningful. It has the potential to be published in ATE. But a major revision is required for improvement.
Reviewer #4: some revise
Reviewer #5: After carefully reading and consideration, I don't recommend it being considered to be published.
editor : Therefore I must reject it.
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014