Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
The paper was reviewed carefully by the reviewer. The reviewer's comments were very helpful.
The rejection was made by the associate editor who didn't give insightful or constructive comments. The comments were humiliating and showed no experience in the field.
The rejection was made by the associate editor who didn't give insightful or constructive comments. The comments were humiliating and showed no experience in the field.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The reviewers pointed out some real technical problems. However, they continually compared our algorithm against algorithms that are solving a different problem. There was some value to their reviews due to the technical points they made, but I think they would have rejected anyway due to simply not reading carefully enough to compare the algorithm with the correct competing approaches.