Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.3 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
This manuscript was a software article. Despite the following issue the reviewing process was fast and simple.
The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.
Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!
The manuscript had to revised and resubmitted three times because one of the reviewers had a problem with the software. However, fixing it was beyond the anonymous peer-reviewing-process since more (personal) information were needed. Finally, the editors (in agreement with the reviewer) accepted the manuscript and the software.
Still, all involved persons were always friendly and we never felt to have been treated unfairly. The suggestions by both reviewers were reasonable and improved both the manuscript and the software. We definitely recommend to submit to this journal!