Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
After the first round of reviews (which we received end of February 2018), we addressed every point and updated the paper (March 2018). Reviews were helpful and made our paper better. However, after 2 months (end of May 2018), we were rejected.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement.
Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.
7.4 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The editor was very responsive and he processed all necessary things in a due manner. One external reviewer provided very constructive and details comments. However, the other reviewer did not provide quality comments.
5.4 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
All in all, the review process was fine. However, in my opinion, the quality of one reviewer's report was very low, and this reviewer was obviously not familiar with the research area. Furthermore, this reviewer then withdrew from the review process at a later stage (for no obvious/mentioned reason), which considerably delayed the review process, because then a new review round started from scratch with a new reviewer.