Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: The editor read rather carefully the manuscript and made several positive comments about it. Several, sound, reasons were given for the desk-reject, mainly linked to methodological concerns and some doubts regarding the innovative character of the findings. It is not common for editors to give that much attention to a paper that does not proceed to peer-review, so we are very grateful to the editor for his detailed and constructive feedback. Also, the very fast rejection (within 2 days) was much appreciated, since it allowed us to ressubmit the paper to a more suitable journal.
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The 2 reviews were contradictory. Maybe in such cases the manuscript should go to a third reviewer rather than be rejected.
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Drawn back
2014
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Drawn back
2014
Motivation: Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
10.0 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2013
Motivation: The review process was fast and very transparent, taking only three months from the first submission until accepting the final version.