Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2020
Motivation: The reviews I received were poorly written. One of the reviews only consisted of two meaningless sentences just saying that the proposed approach may not work in real world conditions without any further comments. However, I discussed extensively in the paper that this is a first case study to check the general feasibilty.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Reviewers had generic criticism about the fact that other authors (they name them, but they do not point to specific papers) already addressed the same problem. Not pointing out any specific paper is very annoying because of course authors are convinced that there are differences w.r.t. literature work. Just saying that other authors worked in the same area or the same problem without the possibility to verify it is not enough. Other criticism was ok in the sense that they required further experiments and practical validation. However, saying that what is proposed cannot be implemented in practice in a straightforward way is again generic without pointing out any specific concern about the transferrability of the result in the real world.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
18.0 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014