Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Rejected
2018
Motivation: The journal response time was very reasonable. However, the diversity in reviewers' opinions and the lack of constructive feedback from rejections did not reflect an overall fair review; particularly the fatuous ~10 word response. However, I believe that this was the reason that a third reviewer's opinion was sought.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation: The editor declared that there were not enough reviewers in the scientific community to assess all the papers submitted. Therefore, the editors could arbitrarily chose to reject papers without asking for the opinion of specialist reviewers. In this case the editor was clearly wrong since the paper was accepted a few months later by another very respectable journal.
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The review process was very long, we had to send 3-4 emails to the journal before getting an answer about the status.
Then, eventually, the review comments (and rejection) were mostly unmotivated. Except few constructive critics and remarks, the main motivation for rejection was "not enough numerical tests", "do not see usefulness of the method". In these cases, reviewers should ask for more tests/explanation. Altogether, it seemed that reviewers were not completely familiar with the topic.
4.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014