Reviews for "Automation in Construction"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a 5 4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Most of the reviews were thorough, careful and helpful, but the review process was unnecessarily slow with no responses and indifference from the editor. After the acceptance, it took a while to get the paper published, mostly because the production process introduced inexplicable errors that were not in my submitted version. Overall, the process was average, and I would submit to the journal again hoping that the slow process was just an unfortunate outlier.