Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
It seems that the manuscript needs improved clarity as the editor and reviewers were confused about some fundamental aspects of the methods and results. Furthermore, an editor misinterpreted a figure and drew false conclusions about inconsistency in our data. As for the two reviewer reports, one reviewer recommended acceptance after minor revision, and another reviewer recommended more robust revisions which were all doable. Some of the revisions this reviewer categorized as "major" were actually editorial remarks about how to structure the order of paragraphs. Neither of the reviewers outright suggested rejection in their comments. At least all the comments were thorough and justified from the editors' and reviewers' points of view. Also the decision was a relatively quick turnaround.
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Good reviews, rapid feedback, constructive and critical. Will submit again here for another paper down the line, I am sure.
9.0 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The editor manging our paper was excellent. They provided many commentaries and helped us navigate some contradictory reviews.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
14.0 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The reviews were the best I've ever received. The associate editor was really helpful and acted as a third reviewer. On the other hand, it took a year to have the manuscript accepted, so it was a really long time.
6.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
6.6 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011
Motivation:
The reviewers and editors provided excelent input and drove me to get a more general and elegant result.