Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
4.3 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
One reviewer clearly hadn't read/understood the paper, other reviewer gave good comments.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The duration was really long and one of the two reviews was batched (the other review was correct). I would like to say that I have no problem with being rejected (rejection is the rule in Academia), but I want to denounce the low quality of this journal (or for being fair, my bad experience with this journal.
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
5.0 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The Editor's letter appeared justified but was simply a summary of the Reviewer's comment, which were unfortunately partly technically wrong (especially for critical aspects that led to the rejection). This is too often the case in the peer-review process that a fully justified response (with several references backing up the author argument) to the Reviewers comments is simply judged "not convincing" or "not correct" by the annonymous Reviewer (who does not have to back up his/her statement by any means). Expert Editor are needed to have an independent psoition over the paper.
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Excellent, very speed process; high quality revisions