Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
18.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Out of the 3 reviews I received, 2 were of specially high quality; both of the suggested revisions but the comments were reasonable and they made me realise where I didn't include enogh details of my analysis in the first version. The third review was quite problematic, though, as this person was evidently biased against the framework and repeatedly misquited both my research and that of others.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
I highly appreciated the constructive way of handling from the editor, who also evidently took enougth time to read through the paper and make suggestions both during the revision process and during editing.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
All reviewers have carefully studied the manuscript and gave valuable feedback. Their critique of my manuscript was fair and sound.