Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.7 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The review process was both helpful and speedy. The reviewers were sympathetic, and broadly constructive in their feedback, and communication with Editors was professional. Problems began after the manuscript was accepted: production was extremely slow, and I was put in the position of regularly chasing the production team for proofs. It took almost a year from final acceptance before proofs were finalised.