Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.0 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The interactive review forum is a very convenient way to address the reviewers' comments in a neatly arranged fashion, which also allows for an expeditious overall process.
6.3 weeks
39.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
I didn’t have a good experience with the journal. The revision process took way more time than usual. The manuscript was endorsed by the two reviewers after second revision with very good feedback. One of the reviewers was not satisfied even after second revision and withdrew from the review process four months after the second submission. In between those four months we have contacted the editorial team every month and no concrete information was provided. After four months when we wrote a decisive email to the editor, they gave the decision by rejecting the manuscript. The journal took eleven months in total to reject the manuscript.
10.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
We the authors had an impression that the editor is not very much interested in closing the review process, but rather, he/she was simply involved in the running theoretical discussion between us and the reviewers. I believe personally, however, that such discussions are more productive if they are carried out after publication. We had to enforce the editor that he/she must, at some time, say a closing word and decide whether he/she accepts or rejects the MS.