Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.3 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected because one reviewer was not satisfied with a minor comment not fully addressed in his/her opinion. The two other reviewers fully supported the publication. The editor (Dr. Molinari) seemed not to fully understand the paper and did not intervene.
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
After 2 months and 10 days of wait, we received the reject notification from the editor, motivated by meagre and minimal review. The reviewer stated our dataset was too small, and recommended to turn down the article.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
I agree that the dataset was small, but that's not a good reason to reject an article in my opinion.
It looked like the reviewer was unable to assess the scientific relevance of our study results.
6.9 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Very good review reports
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
I missed more information on the actual reason for its rejection, but I appreciate promptly providing this information to allow submitting the manuscript to another journal without delaying too much publication times