Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
109 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
15.6 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
2022
19.0 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
2019
8.1 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
3
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Although the manuscript was sent to 5 reviewers, and some rejected and others accepted the paper, all reviewers did a careful analysis of the paper, suggesting good changes. The process was relatively strict, but as it resulted in the accepted paper, it was worth all the effort, corrections and re-submission.
29.4 weeks
46.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
2018
Motivation: - The process took 11 months in total, thus 7 months the first revision round and 3.5 months the second. The editor didn't replay to any email and only due to the elsevier chat was possible to obtain updates.
- The final decision arrived one week after we asked to withdraw the manuscript. Even if we officially asked to withdraw the manuscript (3.5 months after the 2nd submission) the editor didn't withdraw the submission but reject the manuscript.
- The manuscript was rejected why we didn't run a new -minimum- 2 years experiment, different in respect the current one. However, the editor gave us only 3 weeks to submit the revised version (minor revision was requested).
- The reviewer of 2nd round had the number #3, but in the 1st round we got the comments of reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. The editor never replay if the reviewer #3 was the same as reviewer #1 or #2. Therefor we assume that was one of the first two. It could be that was a third reviewer that we never got his/her comments.
29.4 weeks
46.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Overall duration of the process unacceptable. Quality of the process highly debatable.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.
0.0 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
4
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: I don't think that somebody actually read our manuscript before rejecting it as we received a manuscript number (which usually means that an editor was assigned) just 2 minutes before the rejection. In addition, 3 weeks for an immediate rejection is simply too long.
12.1 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Manuscript was handled in a very efficient and quick way. Input from one of the reviewers was very poor, basically just recommending the addition of 5 own papers to reference list. This type of reviewing should be excluded and the reviewer cautioned. Input from the other reviewer was detailed, useful and constructive.
21.6 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
2014
n/a
n/a
69 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation: They took a couple of moths to decide that did not fit the scope of the journal.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2013
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015