Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
There were two initial reports on the paper. The first was positive, it contained important criticism and asked for a major revision. The second was negative, it misused anonymous peer review system to promote opinion which does not stand open discussion (see the last section of https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05141). In my reply to the Editors I justified the above by considering the referee's comments one by one. The Editors suggested a major revision (even before receiving my criticism of the report). I do not know whether the Editors sent my criticism to the second referee or not. I received no reply to my criticism from the second referee.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report.
Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.