Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
20.7 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The reviewers were not particularly helpful (note: it might be due to sheer chance in reviewer selection this one time, and not reflecting the general quality of reviewers for this journal). The positive review was basically a single paragraph to the effect of "this is a great paper worth publishing". The negative review criticized my draft for presumably failing to address alternative theories x, y, z, all of which I had actually discussed and explicitly refuted in the draft. Luckily the editor was quite reasonable, giving me an opportunity to respond to the negative review, and accepted the draft upon relatively minor revisions.
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Even if the waiting period was average for a journal of this calibre, I would have expected after 4.5months to receive at least 2 peer reviews that could have helped me amend the paper better for the next submission. What made it worse was that despite the rejection, the feedback was generally positive and the paper could have easily been accepted with correction. Again, this made it more difficult when reworking the paper.
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Very low quality and superficial referee comments, which clearly exposed that the referees did not bother to thoroughly read the paper, let alone try to understand it. Comments provided no indication of how the paper could be developed in order to make it publishable. Out of the nine (positive and negative) reviews I have received thus far, this one was clearly and by far the least helpful one. A desk reject in this case would have been better and would have safed me several months time.