Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 91.2 days
Drawn back
2025
Motivation:
I want to express my disappointment with the process taking 3 months, which I also find extremely discouraging, considering the unfavourable outcome as l chose to withdraw my manuscript. I can see that the reviewers are very positive; the first reviewer apparently recommended acceptance with brief comments, and the second reviewer elaborated extensively on their comments to further develop the manuscript. In the face of these positive reviews, the editor decided to send the manuscript to another reviewer, who would be commissioned in the unknown future. I can understand that the editor might not find the manuscript publishable for some reason, or simply does not want to take the time to assess it. However, the editor could have given a desk rejection three months ago if they thought so, which would have saved both my and the reviewers' time and labour. This would have been the more respectful option.
8.7 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2010
Motivation:
The handling was overall efficient, cordial, and fair. The publication time (from acceptance to print) was 1 year. Insistence on word limits added to the difficulty of finalizing. Handling of figures did not allow colour reproductions, even for electronic version without substantial cost, and figure space counts towards word limit, making the task even more difficult.