Reviews for "Cardiovascular Research"

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
Cardiovascular Research 4.0
n/a 3 1
(very bad)
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.