Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was extremely biased and had destructive criticism, she/he did not even read the results section, but just scrolled through the graphs, the second reviewer had more constructive criticism and seemed to had actually read the manuscript. The Editor decided to reject the manuscript based on that.
5.7 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Our experience with this Journal was excellent. The manuscript was sent to external per-review within 1 week, within 1 month we got their response. There were 3 reviewers, 1 rejected the manuscript, 2nd found minor errors, whereas the 3rd put much effort to underscore shortcomings, suggested to perform additional experiments and reorganize the manuscript to make it more reader-friendly. All reviewers were all professsionals and experts in the fields. The manuscript improved a lot after revision.
The paper was published in 7 days after acceptance.
The paper was published in 7 days after acceptance.
9.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The overall process was very long. Editor has not done his job. They invited originally 4 reviewers and non of them was available to revise the resubmitted version. Two new reviewers were invited and they reject the manuscript based on argument that questions from reviewer #1 were not addressed. The process was not transparent at all.