Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
Immediately accepted after 5.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2022
Motivation: I received a very positive decision letter, which came after a fair time from the submission.
64.9 weeks
64.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: The status of the manuscript in the system has changed to "Under Review" after 3 months, which is acceptable. I have contacted the editor after 6-7 months, at which point it turned out, that no reviewer has accepted their invitation. The editor encouraged me to wait longer though, and asked for more reviewer candidates. The list has been promptly provided to the editor. The editor has managed to secure a reviewer only 10 months after the initial submission. After suggesting that I wait even longer, the editor has decided to withdraw the manuscript from consideration for publication after almost 65 weeks since the initial submission. The combination of misleading status reports ("under review", when in reality the manuscript is with the editor), lack of communication about the delays in the review, horrible editorial work (not being able to secure a single report after such a long time) makes this literally the worst publishing experience in career. I simply lost 65 weeks of my time without getting any closer to a publication.
57.4 weeks
65.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Very nice experience except for the long review process.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Immediately accepted after 7.0 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2020
Motivation: The report I received was very positive and technical and the review process take a good time.
Immediately accepted after 2.3 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2020
Motivation: I received a very positive, good and timely report.
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
Motivation: The reviewer made a great review job, calling my attention to some wrong or weak points in my work. I do not evaluate the process as 5 because the points that the reviewer called my attention were moderately easy to ammend and I belive that it was case of major revision, but not rejection. A point supporting my view is that after some time I corrected my manuscript, submitted it again to the same journal and I wrote a cover letter saying that the paper had already been submitted there, I corrected it and I listed all changes I had made in the work. Then it was accepted by the same editor who had rejected it.
34.7 weeks
36.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
1
3
Accepted
2018
8.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The report I received was very timely, critical, to the point and clear. The comments made by the reviewer improved considerably my paper. Moreover, from the comments, suggestions and criticisms, it was very clear that the reviewer is an expert in the field. I am extremely satisfied with the whole process, in particular with the way the editor Adrian Constantin handled my paper. In a nutshell, it was an excellent experience.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: I received the following comments from the editor-in-chief: "The topic and the methods are by now relatively standard, so that the innovative part is not up to the expected level.
While the paper deserves to be published, I would say, the proper forum is some journal devoted to mathematical physics."
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The referee said "The subject is of interest and the material is worth publishing in a journal of a good standing. However, JDE is not appropriate: the main strength of the paper is not in the direction of technical of conceptual analytic innovations, but more in the direction of physical modelling."
The main problem with this report is that the paper contains both technical and conceptual analytic innovations in the field of differential equations. Based on the referee opinion the paper was rejected.