Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.0 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
I felt the journal editor handled the review process as well as could be expected given that only one of the reviewers bothered to thoroughly read the article. It was a review article and one of the reviewers rejected it because it "only repeated what others had written" which was in their opinion not enough to warrant a "scientific publication". The other reviewer had excellent and insightful comments which were very helpful in producing a much higher quality manuscript. The editor (fortunately, instead of rejecting the article) indicated that a suitable balance could be found between the two highly mixed reviews.
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The editors were very picky regarding permissions from journals for using data from other articles in a table (explicitly identified as being from another source). it was difficult to get the permissions (especially from Elsevier) and this added about a month onto the process after the editorial acceptance of the article