Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
4.7 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
8.1 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
2
Accepted
2018
Motivation: We got a single short review asking us to shorten the manuscript and write a more focused discussion. It was clear that the reviewer had not read the paper in detail. For example, he/she identified several points made in the manuscript as being interesting. Half of these were actually just citing/explaining/discussing other people's work. Overall it was a very poor review. We resubmitting after shortening the manuscript by about 10% and the editor accepted it without further review.
4.9 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The reviewers made useful comments. One recommended a minor revision and the other a rejection. The editor asked us to re-submit the paper. In the end, one of the reviewers disagreed with a couple of our claims in the manuscript but he was OK with it being published. I was very happy with the editor and reviewers overall.
5.0 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
5.3 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The editor was extremely efficient and professional.
The review process was quick.
8.7 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2012
Motivation: Reviewing process was handle quickly and carefully.