Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2011
Motivation:
The review report was comprehensive. This allowed me to address the issues with the paper and so my experience was very positive with the review process.
Once, I addressed the issues the manuscript was accepted. I was very pleased with how the editor dealt with the whole review process.
Once, I addressed the issues the manuscript was accepted. I was very pleased with how the editor dealt with the whole review process.
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
It took 10 months after a number of solicitations to the associate editor (who claimed difficulties in finding reviewers). This could have been considered in the final decision since 10 months is not a short review time and reviews contained addressable comments in the end.
8.7 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
The editor did not address plain contradictions in the statements of Reviewers, including the fact that one of the Reviewer took claims from the manuscript and cited them with opposite meaning in its own review (literally adding "not" in sentences). While it is acknoledgeable that review process may be discretionary on aspect such as general quality of paper, novelty, etc. plain contradictions should not be allowed to get through expecially when pointed out as the authors did. Unfortunately the only action proposed by EiC (when asked about the matter) was to undergo again a complete review cycle starting as if it was a new submission. The authors were skeptical this was a fair way to address the situation and did not proceed.