Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
The manuscript was stuck with the editorial manager for over a month, with zero progress and zero response after three emails. There was no action from the editor either until one more email was sent directly to the editor's email. I received a rejection email from the editor within the same day, and in that email, the editor cited a manuscript that was not mine, i.e., the wrong title.
27.4 weeks
47.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2020
28.1 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The reviews quality is good but the review process takes too long.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The paper was desk rejected as the editor deemed it not a good fit for the journal. No explanation was given as to why this were the case. The paper was obviously fully within the scope of the journal, so I assume the editor didn't like it but couldn't be bothered to give some feedback as to what the problems were. At least they didn't hang on it for too long.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The editor desk-rejected our paper saying it was not a good fit for the journal, with no additional feedback. I sent a polite inquiry requesting some quick feedback as to why that was the case but to no avail. At least they didn't take the long to reject the paper.
46.9 weeks
75.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The review process was extremely long with reviewer comments pointing in very different directions. While some of the comments were good and did improve the quality of the paper, it cannot justify the long waiting period.