Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.5 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
I have published several papers in this Journal. So far the reviewing process was very good, the assigned editor was responsive, tried to evaluate the manuscript and the reviews and provided suggestions to improve the quality of the submitted papers and, in this way, of the Journal. This time, we received reports from 2 people that apparently did not take to the time to even scan the manuscript. One of them provided a self-conflicting and irrelevant report. He started with suggestions for minor things to change and in the end he recommended rejecting the paper. The other reviewer presented papers (perhaps his own) that were clearly unrelated to the topic we examined. The worst thing is that the assigned editor (unknown to us) did not bother to even scan the paper or the reviews, hence he ordered the Journal editorial office to rejected it without even bothering to write an explanatory letter.
17.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
I have published two papers with JCOMP, and in both cases I was very pleased with the overall process. The reviews were useful in pointing out ways to improve the paper, and the process was relatively fast, less than 6 months from first submission to publication. Above all, I liked the fact that the reviewers were not trying to impose their viewpoint, as in "this is how I would have done it", but mostly concerned with technical points.