Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.1 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments and the editorial approach were positive. Constructive comments and suggestions really augmented the quality of the manuscript.
5.0 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
3.9 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
We experienced a fast and informative review process.
Both negative and positive reviews were insightful, demonstrating understanding of the paper, providing useful suggestions for improvement and clearly calling for rejection or acceptance. The reviews were accompanied by explicit grading (fair, good, excellent) in four areas (originality, technical quality, clarity of presentation, importance to field).
Both negative and positive reviews were insightful, demonstrating understanding of the paper, providing useful suggestions for improvement and clearly calling for rejection or acceptance. The reviews were accompanied by explicit grading (fair, good, excellent) in four areas (originality, technical quality, clarity of presentation, importance to field).
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
8.7 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The reviewing process is always well-scheduled. Often responces come before the scheduled time.The reviewers are competent and helpful. The improvement of my papers after revision is tremendous.