Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.7 weeks
35.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The quality of the reviews was excellent and the editor was very responsive and timely. The reviewers really helped in making the paper better. The one drawback is that one of the reviewers took a long time to respond, which delayed the process.
8.4 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
I believe it was a relatively quick process, and the comments of the reviewers made sense.
8.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
We are very disappointed about our submission to this journal. Instead of sending our revised version to reviewers again, the editor decided to reject our manuscript after three months of waiting, without any descent comments why so. He/she referred to 'substantial issues' but refused to specify these.