Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
17.4 weeks
66.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
I was strongly encouraged to rewrite the original submitted version. I did so, also submitting a detailed list of changes and responses. I submitted the revised version in September 2015. Toward the end of January 2015, I wrote the editor seeking an update. The reply: "I am still waiting for the reviews but chasing the reviewers. Hope to be able to come back to you shortly".
Having no reply, I wrote the editor in early September 2016, asking for an update. The reply in part: "To be frank, we have discussed your paper among the guest editors but felt that on balance the revised version did not address the concerns that had been raised by the reviewers. Hence we were not very optimistic that the revised paper would survive the inevitable peer review."
Having no reply, I wrote the editor in early September 2016, asking for an update. The reply in part: "To be frank, we have discussed your paper among the guest editors but felt that on balance the revised version did not address the concerns that had been raised by the reviewers. Hence we were not very optimistic that the revised paper would survive the inevitable peer review."
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
The Editor suggested, in a relevant way, a different kind of journal.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
Good reports, quick handling.