Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reviewers did not understand the work. Instead instead of declaring this, they based their arguments in impressions and declared that they did not believe some of the results. Those results were based on published and well-known theoretical tools.
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
I could not answer to them to proof the validity of the work as it was rejected
9.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2014
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
One reviewer made multiple unprofessional comments that were many times scientifically incorrect and advised to reject. The second reviewer described the paper as "well-written" and asked for minor revisions. The third reviewer also requested only specific revisions. The editors comments referred only to the first reviewers "strongly suggested rejection" opinion and rejected the manuscript based on this with no option of providing a rebuttal against the incorrect claims and statements or opportunity to revise.