Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
43 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2017
8.6 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
11.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: It was my second experience in publishing and first in this journal.
I rated 3 because:
-if I compare my process to the one of other people in my field, it seemed a standard process. Nothing was exceptionnaly bad or good.
- Overall the process is not efficient. There should be some amount of money involved for reviewers for speeding the process. I think that we would gain high efficiency also if the most important points that have to be improved in the manuscript were discussed verbally between the reviewer and the one who's been reviewed. There is a high amount of wasted time because both don't understand each other.
4.3 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014