Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.6 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Although the initial review took a while, the editor was quick to communicate throughout the process, the reviewers were clear about the positive aspects of the article and what needed some clarification, and the process went very smoothly.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
It is unfortunate that one should have to wait 15 weeks for a rejection supported by 5 sentences of a review where the reviewer, despite being overall appreciative of the quality of the material presented, quibbles about general matters and criticises the author for not tackling something (i.e. significance of the data presented), which in fact I spent about 1/3 of the article discussing. Did the reviewer actually read the whole article? I'm honestly not sure. This is a shameful addition to the track-record of the journal that boasts rejection of 80% manuscripts sent for a review. Maybe it is not just the quality of drafts but also the reviews that feeds into this, at first sight impressive, competitiveness-rate!