Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The reviewers were not familiar with my field of research and did not understand the implications of the results. They seemed only to be interested in their own types of investigation in the field of combustion. One of them made rather condescending comments. The other was partially positive. It might have been possible to submit a revision, but the attitudes of reviewers and editor dissuaded me, and I published a revised paper in another, better journal, with which I am very happy.
0.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Very agile review process. Reviewer's comments were irregular, some of them were very useful and insightful, others were trivial.