Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Only one reviewer.
Extremely poor review and unclear reasons for rejection.
Extremely poor review and unclear reasons for rejection.
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
One reviewer gave an excellent report, the other was terrible. The first reviewer asked for extensive additional experiments, all perfectly relevant. The second reviewer advised to reject the paper despite being incompetent on the subject (most of his criticisms didn't make sens). In the end the editor choose to reject the paper, saying that doing everything the first reviewer was asking for was too much work for a review. Overall the all process was quick, we were just disapointed that one of the reviewers was not qualified on the subject.
12.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Only one reviewer. Many other premier journals in this field supplies review comments from 3 reviewers. Extremely poor review of a reviewer that had clearly not given the paper the attention submissions to a premier journal such as Circulation deserves. Unclear reasons for rejection. Long time to first decision, which was supplied only after asking about the status of our submission.
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015