Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
0.1 weeks
2.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The EIC is helpful, although his practice may not be generally adopted. A few days after my initial submission, he wrote a fairly long paragraph of constructive feedback asking for my revision but he has made it "rejected" on record. I still submit it again given he explicitly asked me to do so.
I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.
I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.