Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: The paper was deemed to be outside the scope of the journal. I appreciate the fast decision and respectful elaboration by the editor who also took the time to answer my additional queries.
15.3 weeks
19.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Good journal, but the process leaves room for improvements. The first round took a long time only to get short reviews. One reviewer was unreasonable with baseless comments in multiple rounds, and the editor didn't seem keen to help (editors shouldn't be just forwarding reviews). Another reviewer was quite positive, so that helped. The paper got accepted after long rebuttals. After the long first round, the process wasn't that long overall (and the editor was prompt), but it could have been faster and smoother if unreasonable reviewers are not given attention and if editors are active in identifying such cases and communicate with the authors. After acceptance, the PDF was produced quickly.
7.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: We had an excellent experience. The review reports were very detailed and professional. It took some effort to address them, but they have enhanced the quality of the paper. Overall, the entire process was quick and pleasant. The associate editor was very responsive about a query we had.
5.4 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Reasonable and helpful reviews. However, far from a perfect experience due slow decisions by the handling editor (it took a month to accept the final resubmitted manuscript after a minor revision), and it took another month to have the paper appear online, following a flippant and unresponsive process of typesetting by Elsevier.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: This decision was based upon suitability for publication in Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems and fit. However, they encouraged me to submit to the Journal of Transport Geography, which was not more suitable.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: Even though they rejected the manuscript, I am happy with their prompt response. It did not waste time.
10.0 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Very good and efficient process. The reviews were helpful and timely, and they have improved the paper.
24.1 weeks
56.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Most of the reviews were useful and they have improved the paper, but the process of receiving the reviews and the decision was inexcusably slow. Communication with the editor could have been better, and the editor could have been more engaged in the process. One reviewer had unreasonable comments, and we feel that the editor should have stepped in after our rebuttal. This has considerably delayed the publication for no reason. After acceptance, typesetting by Elsevier induced some errors and it was also slow. CEUS is a good journal, but our experience with this paper was bad.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
2014
Motivation: Two reviewers either did not understand the paper or were intentionally blocking it.
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013