Reviews for "Cardiovascular Research"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a 3 1
(very bad)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: We responded to EVERY comment made by the reviewers with new data. One of the reviewers made a serious error in their review of the manuscript and new data; they did not read it. I appealed to the editor to examine it. The editor make me wait two additional weeks, then told me "they do not overturn reviewers decisions". I asked the editor if she read the reviewer's comments. I never got a response.