Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
12.7 weeks
49.0 weeks
2 reports
Motivation: Over three cycles of review, with two reviews each time, there were two reviewers who liked the paper and were satisfied with the manuscript, and one who would not be satisfied (who was not a reviewer until round 2). The authors were disappointed that this paper went from a minor revision (at review #1) to a rejection (at review #3), but feel the editor may have been in a bind due to that reviewer. With an average of 4 months per review, this process delayed the publication of this paper by a year and a half. Trying not to let the outcome skew our impressions of the review process, we do wish (1) a new reviewer hadn't been brought in during round 2, (2) the new reviewer's opinions hadn't been weighted above the other two, (3) the process hadn't taken so long, (4) we hadn't been asked to complete a revision after review #2, if the reviewer was never going to be satisified with our methods.