Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.0 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: One Review was just "Very nice Paper!", so rather pointless. Otherwise the review process was normal.
4.7 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: This is for a review paper and thus I expected a thorough and critival peer review process. However, I found that the discussion with one reviewer turned more and more towards opinion discussion than facts. I feel it would have been the editors job to intervene or position himself.