Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
2019
Motivation: As the best comment may serve the first review I've got:

This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.

which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: Fast review by the editorial team and the communication was great.
20.9 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2011
23.3 weeks
44.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Accepted
2013
Motivation: There have been some problems with the generated pdf from their platform; many equations where not displayed properly
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2013
Motivation: Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.