Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.1 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
13.0 weeks
15.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The initial review process was longer than I had anticipated, but the reviews were on the whole thorough and useful. On second review the additional comments were very useful and caught errors we missed which were highly beneficial for the article. The editor was very helpful throughout the review process, and ultimately I am glad we submitted to the Journal of Anatomy.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
We were surprised that the journal immediately rejected the article on the basis of the study not being in the remit of the journal, as the article involved quantification of anatomy with inferences on the evolution and function of the anatomical units in question.
13.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Good reviews which allowed the paper to be improved. My second experience with this journal and both times I found the review process to be fair.