Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Relatively slow review process. After the required reviews were completed, the paper landed on the editor's desk and stayed there for a month. Reviews were of OK quality, but most points regarding methodology were false as they argued in exactly the opposite direction that the paper did.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out important limitations that we did not emphasize as much as they would have liked. Since we cannot address them with the data used (as discussed in the paper), it's only fair for the editor to reject the paper. The whole process was a bit slow, though...
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
"it would not be competitive in the review process "
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Very fast desk reject. Puzzing reason for desk reject.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Two positive reviews (one major R&R and one minor R&R). Editor still rejected paper with one sentence justification.
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Average handling of manuscript. The reasons for the rejection are stated clearly enough.