Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
The answer was just a generic "stock" email without any explication. It was just saying "we think that your manuscript would be a better fit for another journal".
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
5.0 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
13.0 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The review process eventually helped to improve the quality of the paper, but not all comments were necessarily benign and constructive.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
There was one review very poorly written and most comments could not be understood. It seems like a review written by a postdoc instead of a principal investigator who should be (or was) asked to do perform review. Senior Editor showed no interest for scientific discussion.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012