Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2021
Motivation: Reviewers recommended rejection for mainly "academic" reasons (e.g., data analysis and experimental design not being the most elegant) while acknowledging the timeliness and value of the information presented. Many of the points raised were requests for clarifications/additional information which could have been addressed in a revision in my view.
On the upside, reviewers were clearly experts on the topic, their comments were useful to improve the paper, and the overall duration of the review process was decent.
2.1 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Very fast handling of the paper - likely also because the paper in question was a "short communication" (<4000 words), and overall excellent communication with and from the editor.

The reviews were high quality and constructive, and definitely improved the paper,

8.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The reviewer criticized the manuscript purely based on lack of methodological innovation, while not paying any interest at all at the results and contribution of the manuscript to understand an ill-researched topic. I found the arguments for rejection very shallow and purely academic, i.e. absolutely no effort was done to place the value of the manuscript in a context of contributing to an ill-researched topic. Some of the arguments were not valid and showed that the reviewer had not carefully read the manuscript. The editor based the rejection on a single, unsympathetic reviewer report, which I do not find fair.
3.5 weeks
3.8 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Fast process and clear communication from the editor.