Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
1.3 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2024
Motivation: We received three reviews on the paper. Two were very constructive, offering helpful insights, while the third came from a reviewer who mainly picked up on a few keywords and concluded that the topic was uninteresting and lacking in novelty. This third reviewer provided no constructive feedback, offering only a few sentences.

After revision, the paper was sent back to this reviewer, likely because the other two recommended only minor revisions. However, this reviewer again suggested rejection, stating that their initial "points" had not been addressed, though the reviewers feedback consisted of critical remarks rather than specific points. We did provide a point-by-point response to their brief comments.

Following this round, the manuscript was reviewed by the editorial board, which took about two weeks to reach an acceptance decision.
1.4 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The handling by the editorial office was great and the reviewing process was very fast.

One of the reviewers was also quite helpful, while the other one obviously did not have much knowledge of the topic our publication was about. In some cases he/she made completely contradictory comments in comparison to the other reviewer. This was quite annoying as the manuscript was submitted for a special issue concerning exactly our area of work, so I was expecting all the reviewers to be more expert in this field.