Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
My paper was with editor for 3 weeks. The submission site displayed "under review" instead of "with editor", which is unnecessarily confusing. I received a desk rejection e-mail that was clearly a template directed to authors whose paper had been under peer review. Overall dissatisfied.
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Two different reviewers made appropiate comments of our manuscript. Their positive comments were easy to answer and it would have been easy to improve the manuscript following their comments.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
But the decision of the editor was a rejection without any reasonable reason.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
8.4 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Handling time seemed appropriate to me and two of the reviews seemed quite fair. Three different reviewers viewed the manuscript in total. One had a couple very minor concerns. The second had several substantive concerns that we tried to address, but in the end they did not think the paper was a good fit for the outlet. The third reviewer made several completely unfounded claims about how we measured one of our variables. The critique was so misinformed it was hard to even respond to as they were suggesting we did things we just did not do. It does not seem as though they even read our rebuttal.