Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
Our study received one positive and one negative review. The negative review with the suggestion of rejection was (1) extremely short and (2) not supported by any references. One part of the reasons for rejection was extremely general and could be applied to almost any study in our field. Another part contained a few statements nearly opposite to how the methodology and results of the study were described. In brief, all these statements were either not relevant to the study (we showed that it was not the case) or not supported by any reference, law, or observations (no one knows if they are true or not). While statements without any support are just not constructive or scientific, direct misinformation about the study's limitations suggests a poor or motivated revision. After a resubmission in which all the listed potential limitations were discussed, the same reviewer just repeated nearly the same text, not providing a single reference to support his or her claims. Such revisions may break the concept of goodwill, as both our study and some other studies were described by a reviewer with a clear sign of misinformation (even after resubmission). Moreover, when an editor cannot distinguish between constructive and non-constructive revisions because of a different background or field of study, such a process becomes very vulnerable to motivated revisions.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
5.6 weeks
11.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
9.3 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Exceptionally slow review process based on only 1-2 reviewers.
3.3 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The handling process was perfect. The editor was responsive and efficient. The reviewers were professional.
5.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
I wouldn't say that every aspect of the review process was perfect, but GRL maintained its usual efficiency despite the pandemic and people's summer vacation. Therefore, I think it deserves a 5.
4.7 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The two reviewers were professional and the editor seemed to have read the reviewer's comments carefully. The handling was extremely efficient despite the holiday season.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The "Initial Quality Control" usually takes 4-5 days, which is quite slow. Then the EIC gives a rapid rejection decision (1 day later) without external review for considering novelty. Why not EIC directly give a decision? I guess the "Initial Quality Control" is just for checking the format and data policies. Why so long!..............................! Hope for an improvement!
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
4.3 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
12.1 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
It took a while, but I got good reviews that were very helpful. I would like to point out, however, that the turnaround time listed on the GRL website is based on manipulation of the submission times. My manuscript required only minor revision (took me less than one day), but the journal demanded that I fully resubmitted the revisions, meaning that the clock was reset. Consequently, the it appears on the website that it took only 8 weeks from submission to the published paper appearing online.
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I was pleased with the quick but detailed and useful reviews I received from GRL, and the editor was quite efficient in handling the manuscript. Overall a very positive experience.
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The reviews were received quickly and offered several suggestions for improvements, which we made before submitting to a different journal.
4.3 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The review process was very efficient.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
The review comments received were constructive and helped improve the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014