Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
1.3 weeks
1.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The editor only took into account the negative comments of the reviewers and clearly did not read the work in order to analyse them properly. It is fair to say, on the other hand, that the process was fast.
19.4 weeks
32.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Good choice of reviewers. Good comments of the reviewers. But the process took too much time.
27.1 weeks
38.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Reviews were useful and relevant, and the editor was supportive. However, both the first (seven months) and the second (two months and a half) editorial decisions took too long.
10.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected, the reviews were very helpful and the handling time was reasonable.
9.3 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
19.7 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
35.9 weeks
50.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
I believe the reviewers' comments were constructive in improving the quality of my manuscript. However, the whole process, especially the first round of review took too long. I was glad that they hurried up to publish it by the end of the year, though.
21.7 weeks
82.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013