|Journal title||Average duration||Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
|(click to go to journal page)||1st rev. rnd||Tot. handling||Im. rejection||Number||Quality||Overall rating||Outcome|
|BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making||20.3
|Motivation: The entire process took 10.5 months, well beyond the "fast turnaround" and decision time that the journal advertises. We did extensive review in response to the first and second reviews. Mostly in response to a single reviewer. On the second review, one reviewer indicated that the revisions were acceptable, but the second reviewer raised a whole set of new criticisms (different from the first review).
The final decision was that the manuscript was not interesting for the general audience of the journal, a critique raised on the first and second reviews. We were extremely disappointed that this decision was not made by the editor after 5 months or 8 months, the first and second reviews, by the editor. To ask the authors to do more work, and then have the manuscript rejected, not based on the responses to the critiques but on suitability and interest, was very frustrating.