Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.9 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The overall process was really fine.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.
The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit.
We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor.
The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.