Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The editor gave me valuable feedback and comments for the first half of the MS. She encouraged me to re-send it again if I wished to make substantial improvements: In several places more information was needed. And the results did not reflect what would be reported in the analytical approach chosen.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The editor gave very constructive feedback to improve the MS and thus have a better fit with the journal, thus implicitly encouraged a resubmission after revising the addressed points.
2.1 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
3.9 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Knowledgeable reviewers (clearly experts in the area) provided constructive feedback. The review process was quick and efficient. The MS was handled very well by the editor.
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
I had the chance to make a few modifications as suggested by the editor before the manuscript was sent out to reviewers.
After rejection, the editor sugggested to transfer my manuscript to a more suited journal. I was pleased with this decision
After rejection, the editor sugggested to transfer my manuscript to a more suited journal. I was pleased with this decision
9.3 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
I am very pleased with the processing of this manuscript. The reviewers comments were thoughtful and helped to improve the final accepted manuscript.
6.6 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Overall a very positive experience. The reviews were constructive and clear, and the turn around time was fast.
6.3 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
This was a very rigorous review process. I felt the first revision was very useful and improved the manuscript substantially. But I believe subsequent revisions were unnecessary and superficial, but had to be done basically to satisfy a review who I felt didn't fully understand the study. Nevertheless I appreciated the thoroughness of the process and I am grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their efforts, although the whole process did take some time from start to completion (presumably due to the multiple revisions requested).
3.4 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The comments were quite short but to the point and they helped improve the quality of the paper.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
2.5 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Very quick review times, and good reviews, too. Editor seemed to rely fully on the reviewers.