Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.1 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Good editorial guidance
15.2 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2018
Motivation: I've made substantial changes to the manuscript after first round of reviews. Reviews were of high quality, although one reviewer was picking up on things that seem to me to be irrelevant to the overall argument. Honestly, I had the feeling that rev. no 2 had not understood what the paper was about, issues that were according to her/him useless were praised by the first reviewer. I've provided both reviewers with "rebuttal letter" pointing out all the changes made according to the reviews. However, rev. no 2 was still not satisfied and keep pointing out new issues, to which I had no chance to reply. Editor eventually decided to side with the rev. no 2 and the manuscript was rejected.
6.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Drawn back
2015
Motivation: The first round of revisions really improved the paper. This was enough to satisfy reviewer 1, but insufficient for reviewer 2. The critique of the latter was quite external. Unfortunately the reviewer sided with reviewer 2.