Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.4 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2021
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2018
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
they stated our paper is not quite related to their journal topic, although the journal do publish many papers on this topic. this is ridiculous
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
6.3 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
In the first round of reviews, I felt that the reviewers and editor put quite a bit of effort into providing really thorough reviews and I feel that my revisions, which required reanalyzing data, did improve the paper, but then they rejected it for lack of novelty. I just feel that if that is what they are going to judge a manuscript on, they should not invite a resubmit - that was irresponsible.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
19.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2018
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The decision was based on the manuscript not being fit for the journal. The editor gave good reasons for this decision, even though he praised the quality of the study,
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
7.4 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
12.6 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
11.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
I wasn't satisfied with proofing process after my manuscript was accepted.