Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The initial set of reviewer's comments included only two of the three sets of comments - no one had noticed the comments from one reviewer were missing. We had to chase these. The comments from the third reviewer were so vague and poorly communicated (language and content) we struggled to understand them and raised a concern about these. We received quite rude comments from the editor on why she thought the reviewer was correct to reject the paper. We responded to all three sets of comments and the editor's but requested reviewer 3 was not consulted in the second round of reviews because of the poor quality of their comments. This was ignored. We received further feedback from all three reviewers and then the paper was rejected. Interestingly the second round of comments were clear enough to understand the editor(s) obviously felt that the quality of the initial peer review which was unintelligible was sufficient for the journal which concerned us. It is probably worth saying we did publish there previously - several years ago and the experience was more positive in terms of quality of comments so this may not be typical.