Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
16.6 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
34.1 weeks
34.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were a combination of misgivings about how our analysis had been carried out and a topic that was too restricted in its geographic relevance to be of wide interest.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
There were a few comments that we feel betray some unfamiliarity with the type of analysis we carried out but other than this the feedback was comprehensive and will be useful when we resubmit to another journal. On this basis while the process took a long time, we feel the editorial staff took care in sourcing reviewers that will ultimately improve our article.
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
Motivation:
After one month and a half since the submission, the paper was rejected with no external review. Besides 'copied-and-pasted' default statements, the only original information provided by the editor in the decision letter was that the content of the paper was of local importance only.