Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
One reviewer was very supportive, one was utterly dismissive but did not seem to have done more than skim the manuscript. That was enough to sink the paper.
n/a
n/a
45 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
One reviewer was quite constructive and identified how the paper should be improved. The other one was picking on minor things, but the editor suggested we consider the former one's comments -- which we'll do. Given the comments we got, I'm mostly disappointed with our not spotting these weaknesses; the handling of the manuscript was fair.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and apparently failed to communicate clearly as most of the points criticized are actually in the manuscript. Standard handling of the manuscript.
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
There were two reviewers with contradictory recommendations and different quality of comments. The weaker reviewer recommended rejection and the editor rejected the manuscript based on rather poor arguments. The stronger reviewer recommended revise and resubmit and all the points could have been addressed without problems.
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
5.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
19.5 weeks
20.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2011
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013