Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
5.0 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
While I was initially impressed with the speed of the first review round, the second one felt like an eternity, so I contacted the editor about the status of my manuscript. I was very politely informed that they had been having trouble with the first reviewer, had attempted to muster alternative reviewers, and finally had to wait for the first reviewer to come around. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which in this case may have been a disadvantage.
18.7 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
It took quite a while for the first round to come to a conclusion, so I had almost forgotten about the manuscript. However, I was happy to hear that the manuscript would be accepted after some minor changes. Note that CPC seems to be comfortable with relying on the input of only one reviewer, which may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Overall, the entire reviewing and editorial processes were handled quite agreeably.
6.0 weeks
11.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were helpful and practical. Also, the editor's notes helped to improve the manuscript. Generally, the communication with the journal was easy, fast and constructive.