Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.7 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
Rejected
2020
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.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
60 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: Editor took over six weeks to make editorial rejection. Too long.
4.3 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
2011
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.