Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Glia 5.7
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The revised manuscript was rejected based on priority and a perceived lack of novelty. The one review of the revised manuscript, which contained several errors in two short paragraphs, concluded that the paper was "in fact very solid", but lacked novelty. No such concerns were expressed in the original two reviews or by the editor at the time of inviting resubmission. The reason for rejection was thus unrelated to the revisions made, and it seems this decision could have been rendered at the time of reviewing the initial submission rather than wasting our time by encouraging resubmission.
Glia 8.7
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Glia n/a n/a 60.8
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor took over six weeks to make editorial rejection. Too long.
Glia 4.3
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: My main concern is about the reviewers. After adding new data (according to the reviews) and re-submission, one reviewer came up with totally new points that could have been addressed already in the first version of the manuscript.