Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
6.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
2012
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
2014
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Drawn back
2013
Motivation: One of the two reports recommended acceptance, the other (by the same negative referee of the first round) rejection. We had also explained to the editor at painstaking length that the requested changes were out of the focus of the paper. The editor decided not only to reject, but (on the grounds that "both" reports were negative!!!) said that, since it would be impossible to revise this paper without writing it anew (!!!) any resubmission would be treated as new. Mind that this paper was invited and recommended by one of the CQG editors, still the editor in charged completely ignored both the inviting editor's recommendation and the positive report. Totally unprofessional behaviour; that editor felt free to bully and make arbitrary decisions protected by his anonymity. I'll never submit again to this journal.