Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
2017
Motivation: Even though one of the reviewers was satisfied the article was rejected on the basis of a luke warm second referee. The second referee brought up a new point - completely misunderstanding the article. The report was very poorly written and showed ZERO competence in the field. Was likely a graduate student. Very disappointing - especially after having done a lot of work on the article to take into account the referee's previous concerns.
21.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
2012