Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
An AE wrote a summary of the paper missing the main point and rejected it.
11.3 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The first time the AE comlpetely missed the novelties.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.
then i was assigned a reviewer who hardly wrote in English and asked generic questions (e.g. I wonder if the two methods are different, of course they were) or would just not understand and ask for clarifications.
In the three rounds of reviewing one referee never acknowledged I had answered his/er previous comments, but would just come up with new meaningless requests.
I found it totally unethical to let a referee just argue for the sake of not making a paper published. The other referee said it was ok after the second review.