Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Four reviewers provided useful information, but one was quite abusive. The editor separately sent the additional negative review, which appeared to have access to personally identifiable information about one of the authors. This review also provided absolutely no content-based comments. When the senior author addressed this with the editor, the response was that they were under an ethical obligation to forward all reviews even if they were derogatory and personally attacked an author. We disagree with this statement, are concerned about the blinding procedures, and believe that this journal perpetuates a negative academic environment.