Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Efficient and rather fast review process. One of the reviewer had problems with our methodology while the other reviewer was globally positive. This resulted in the rejection of our paper.
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
After a 12 week review, we received a single paragraph outlining a half-dozen shortcomings in our manuscript, none of which were supported with literature. This is concerning given statements surrounding the novelty of the work. Collogueges well versed in the topic had previously reviewed this manuscript and found it novel and engaging to read. Given the limited depth of the review, only a single review being reported with no recommendations for improvement, the process allowed provided little improvement potential. I have previously been very impressed with this journal and will submit here in the future, but will hope for a more thorough and timely review process.