Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2024
Motivation: Editor and reviewers were quick in their decision. The manuscript was rejected because the editor judged its topic to be too preliminar to perform a SR, but reviewers' comments were overall positive. Despite the rejection, a good experience.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2022
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
2022
Motivation: The expedience of this review process was a plus. However, 2 of the 3 review reports were unsatisfactory: one barely commented on the quality of the manuscript and instead focussed on particular aspects that could easily be addressed in comments, while the other had a number of confusing (at one point commenting on a missing figure panel, when there was no such figure panel intended for or ever mentioned in the manuscript). That the editor relied on these subpar reviews to make a decision is unfortunate. It is understandable that this is a fairly high impact journal with a great number of submissions, but that the reviews were not scrutinized is, again, unfortunate.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2015
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Rejected
2016
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
378 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014