Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
24.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The submission and review process were very smooth. Unfortunately, due to problems at the production department of the publisher, there was some delay to publish the paper on OnlineFirst.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2020
2.4 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The initial review was high quality, though we were surprised there was only one reviewer. It included critical comments on the overall paper as well as proposed minor edits to the ms text, so clearly the reviewer had spent a lot of time. The editor just forwarded the review without adding any comments of their own. Resubmission took over a year due to external circumstances; after that, acceptance came lightning fast, without the review round we were expecting. Again, the editor had no comments except to say that this version was fine. The paper did improve a lot thanks to the initial review, but still it feels weird to skip the second review round (if I had been the original reviewer I would've wanted to see the response to reviewers and the edits made). But perhaps at this journal, "revise and resubmit" can mean anything from minor revisions to almost rejected, and our ms ended up more towards the former end of the scale.