Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.6 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
12.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
2012
Motivation: The initial review process took longer than expected. The journal requests that reviews be submitted in 3 weeks, but it took about 12 weeks to get a response. The reviewers didn't seem to have many comments of substance, but revision was requested. This would have been less irksome of the initial decision had come sooner. It is worth noting that the proofing process introduced grammatical and spelling mistakes into the paper that hadn't been present previously.
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Accepted
2013
Motivation: The journal requests that reviews be completed within 3 weeks, so it's disappointing that this process took nearly 16 weeks. Typesetting/proofing introduced errors into the manuscript. The editors were flexible about the timing of publication.