Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
One reviewer said "reject" the other reviewer said "revise and resubmit." The editor chose to reject it, which is fine. The reviewer comments are pretty helpful. I believe I would have a stronger paper once I address the reviewer comments.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
A quick and honest response, although not what we were expecting. The editor made suggestions for alternative journals that he felt the paper would be better suited to. The paper has been resubmitted elsewhere now.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Reviewers have carefully read the paper and really improved it.
The reviewing process was quick.
The reviewing process was quick.
7.5 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
I was always promtely infromed about any progress in the revision process. The editor was extremely professional and read carefully the manuscript in each step of the revision process. One of the referee reports was very very short and not praticularly useful. However the editor had a lot of very good suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript.