Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
28.6 weeks
28.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2023
Motivation: It took the action editor 1 full month after all reviews were submitted to let us know the outcome. One reviewer didn't even read the paper properly. Never again
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: The editor "feels" that the English is not up to standard, but we used various grammar and language quality checks to evaluate our manuscript and it consistently got high evaluation scores. The editor did not point out specific language issues that significantly affect the readability of our manuscript and so the decision is not convincing at all. Definitely wouldn't recommend this journal.
19.3 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The editorial process could be faster than this. The handling editor rendered their decision a month after when all external review reports were submitted. The overall quality of the external review reports was fair.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2021
Motivation: The feedback was useful although one reviewer seemed to miss the information that had been included (saying it was not included). Additionally, we did incorporate and resubmit to another journal. The biggest issue was the length of time for feedback and the reviewers seemed to have skimmed the article.
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The editorial office was very fast and the reviewers were helpful. I was unexpectedly good.
15.7 weeks
23.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Though the one reviewer assigned was overall helpful and professional, I cannot say the same about the handling editor. My paper was rejected based on a single review report (which was not all that negative to motivate rejection). I was left with the impression that my paper was rejected because they did not want to spend time finding additional referees.
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
2019
Motivation: It took the editor a whole month to send back the manuscript with a request to mask one information, and then over another month to send the manuscript to reviewers, a process which normally takes a few days. The reviews themselves came reasonably fast, were acceptable in lenght but the quality of some of the comments was lacking (mostly the methodological ones). Reviewer #1 recommended revisions and reviewer #2 did not specify the recommended decision but the review was in similar tone to the first one, however the editor decided to reject the paper basing the decision mostly on faulty methodological logic. Overall, what seems like lasy editorial work made the experience significantly negative.
8.0 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
6.7 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2015
1.6 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
4
Accepted
2013