|Journal title||Average duration||Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
|(click to go to journal page)||1st rev. rnd||Tot. handling||Im. rejection||Number||Quality||Overall rating||Outcome|
|Computational Statistics and Data Analysis||n/a||n/a||15.0
|Motivation: An AE wrote a summary of the paper missing the main point and rejected it.|
|Computational Statistics and Data Analysis||11.3
|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.