Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
40.3 weeks
40.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Rejected
2014
Motivation: Took far too long to respond. This significantly wasted the authors' time in an arena where research is supposed to be cutting edge. I also thought the reviews were quite narrow-minded in not understanding the benefits of publishing research that was primarily developmental and involved pilot studies, and therefore had interesting developments but was not statistically perfect because of the difficulties involved.
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
2012
Motivation: I was impressed by the speed of the review process.