Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
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