Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.9 weeks
33.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
2026
Motivation:
The initial review was reasonably paced, with a major-revision decision about six weeks after submission. However, this first decision was issued on the basis of a single reviewer report, which we later learned did not meet the journal's own stated requirement of at least two reviewers.
We resubmitted our revised manuscript two days after the decision. What followed was a prolonged and unresolved delay. Over the next six months, the editorial office was unable to secure the required reviewers: more than ten reviewer invitations were sent, and none were accepted. During this period, the status updates we received were at times contradictory — one message indicated the manuscript was out for review with only a final report outstanding, while a later message stated that reviewers were still being sought.
To their credit, once the matter was escalated, the Lead Editor responded personally, acknowledged the irregularities, and was transparent about the difficulties. This was appreciated. Nonetheless, after more than six months without any realistic prospect of a decision, we chose to withdraw the manuscript.
Our experience suggests that authors should be aware of the possibility of significant delays in reviewer recruitment for this journal, and of limited proactive communication during those delays.
We resubmitted our revised manuscript two days after the decision. What followed was a prolonged and unresolved delay. Over the next six months, the editorial office was unable to secure the required reviewers: more than ten reviewer invitations were sent, and none were accepted. During this period, the status updates we received were at times contradictory — one message indicated the manuscript was out for review with only a final report outstanding, while a later message stated that reviewers were still being sought.
To their credit, once the matter was escalated, the Lead Editor responded personally, acknowledged the irregularities, and was transparent about the difficulties. This was appreciated. Nonetheless, after more than six months without any realistic prospect of a decision, we chose to withdraw the manuscript.
Our experience suggests that authors should be aware of the possibility of significant delays in reviewer recruitment for this journal, and of limited proactive communication during those delays.
5.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The reviewers provide constructive feedback to help shape the manuscript into a more readable and well-structured form.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
12.4 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The reviewers and editor provide constructive to help craft the article in a comprehensive manner. We are so happy to have our research published in this prestigious journal.