Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: While the reviewers were constructive and suggested changes that improved the manuscript, the process was very much delayed by adding on additional reviewers in rounds #2 and #3, even though we had addressed all previous reviewer questions. At some point, an editorial decision should have been made (all reviewers were overall positive about the importance and quality of the manuscript).
Motivation: Favorite experience at a journal thus far. Editors were responsive, transparent, and fair. From my perspective, it felt like the editors made an effort to keep the review and editorial process efficient with as few gaps in handling as possible.