Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.9 weeks
50.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
I had to e-mail to the journal around one month after each submission. The paper was completely stopped, without any editorial action. In reply to one of my messages, the editor-in-chief wrote that he cannot see my paper through the system and he was asking for some help. Moreover, in the first revision one of the reports was somewhat nonsense, but we did our best to make changes according to the referee's suggestions. Then, in the second round of the revision, the editor invited two other reviewers to the manuscript. It was really a desaster. One of the asked us to cancel the editions we made by the reviewer I mentioned and, in essence, return the paper to its original version. Summarising: it was a terrible process. I didn't like.