Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
Medicinal Chemistry took a bit more time in publishing my final web version of the article.
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Future Medicinal Chemistry served as a perfect platform for the publication of my article.
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
2.9 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
This was an invited article. It had 3 favourable referee reviews and one grumpy one (who obviously disagreed with our views - see also http://dbkgroup.org/on-scientific-censorship-and-bitchiness/), and it was sent to this person who inevitably dug their heels in despite a detailed rebuttal. I sent a further rebuttal which eventually was looked at by 'senior editors' who clearly did not bother to read the detailed arguments at all - some of their comments were wrong. Consequently I consider this a joke journal and shan't be sending anything to them again, nor likely any of this stable's output. The ability of editors to censor science is disgusting (see above blog link). Authors put their names to papers; if stuff is wrong it will be pointed out, to authors' detriment. These editors hid under a cloak of anonymity, despite my request that they should identify themselves if they were going to have an intellectual argument. Clearly they were not interested in that, as the only communications I got were from the Office.