Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.1 weeks
22.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The first review round was a good experience: three high-quality reports which helped to improve my manuscript a lot. However, the send review round took a bit more time than I expected, probably due to the summer holiday. Overall, nice experience.
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Overall this was a good experience, with the exception of the waiting times, which were a bit longer than expected. The editor was in general hands off (the ms was not in his field), but eventually helpful to deal with a particularly hostile reviewer.
9.1 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The overall process was incredibly quick and smooth, plus the editors were very transparent about all steps and what they expect in R&R.
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Critical but not unfair reviews. The main comments could have been met with "major revisions"
7.6 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Very responsive.
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail.
13.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011
9.6 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
I feel this a generally positive experience. The turnaround time was decent. There were one or two comments that I felt stemmed from not having read the MS carefully, but overall the comments were well-observed and helped me to improve the manuscript a great deal. They were quite strict on the word count.