Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.6 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Although I do not know when the editorial board submitted requests to the reviewers, the reviews were not reflecting 3-month-period of the thorough review.
- The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work.
- The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references)
- The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced.
I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal.
I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic.
The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude.
Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.
- The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work.
- The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references)
- The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced.
I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal.
I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic.
The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude.
Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The reviews were ok