Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Accepted
2023
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: I deeply suspect the editor-in-chief has a group of deeply connected people holding academic positions in India, and screens with bias.
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
2023
Motivation: The review reports received were interesting, however it was a bit strange that it ended with a rejection as they did not seem that negative.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: A rather generic message was given: 'Unfortunately, after an initial screening, we did not find it suitable for BITE, thus regretfully will not be able to consider for publication'
And some extra information.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: The editor seemed to have rejected it without giving it a read,
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: Editor has refused the article without any good reason and I had the feeling that he does not even read the manuscript, given the automatic, vague and obtuse answer.
6.0 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process was very fast. Reviewers comments was useful. Totally ol review process looks very well.
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The duration of the review, reviewers selectopn and editorial decision was short. The responce of one of the reviewers was strongly incompetent.