Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
0
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The reviewer did not consider the technical novelty proposed in the manuscript.
Most of the criticisms on the proof reading are not correct and are due to lack of the reviewer attention. Other typos or reference error are due to the conversion of the word file into pdf.
In summary, there are very few formal errors that are usually corrected during the review process but cannot be causes of rejection.
8.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
2011