Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The reviewer rejected my article with an argument I found intriguing: they acknowledged the topic's relevance due to an upcoming European space mission but deemed the manuscript unsuitable for peer review. This raises an important question—if the manuscript truly lacked the necessary quality, wouldn’t the editor, an experienced professional astronomer, have identified this at an earlier stage?
The review focused primarily on the conclusions section and did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The concerns raised could have been addressed with constructive feedback. Based on my prior publications in journals with similar impact factors, I found this review process unusually slow and lacking in depth. However, after resubmitting the paper to another journal from the same publisher, it was accepted within two to three months, reinforcing the value of the work.
The review focused primarily on the conclusions section and did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The concerns raised could have been addressed with constructive feedback. Based on my prior publications in journals with similar impact factors, I found this review process unusually slow and lacking in depth. However, after resubmitting the paper to another journal from the same publisher, it was accepted within two to three months, reinforcing the value of the work.
6.9 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Only complaint is just one reviewer. More opinions would be welcomed. My reviewer was young, probably student. That was obvious from the comments. Having someone more experienced to review the paper would be beneficial.