Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The review was fast. The reviewers' comments were insightful and helpful.
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The review process was very great. The comments in first round review were excellent, from both methodological and theoretical aspects, and it's done in 17 days! When we resubmit it, the editor just accepted our article few hours later. I was very satisfied with all the processes.
3.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
I thought the review cycles were fairly rapid. I found the comments from the first round of reviews to be thoughtful and pertinent, and although additional experiments were required to address the reviewers' comments, those additional experiments substantially improved the manuscript. Overall, I thought the reviewing editor did an excellent job in handling this manuscript throughout the review process.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The paper was judged to preliminary by the journal and was rejected in reasonable delay.