Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
Room one week for editorial check after which it was sent back with request to add page numbers to the check list. Took another week for editorial check, before it was assigned to editor for review but rejected in two days.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
Very fast!
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
There was a relatively long delay in receiving the peer review and editorial decision but this was acknowledged and apologised for by the editors. Despite the lengthy time between submission and rejection it did at least go to a reviewer and the comments were very fair and clearly from a topic expert.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
24.0 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
It took the editor almost 3 weeks to make the decision to reject without review, which I found a bit long, but they apologized for the delay in the decision letter.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
One reviewer was constructive and fair. The second reviewer, however, was no constructive and seems to have not understood the paper. The comments were irrelevant and not substantive.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
Fast, would submit there again.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
27.6 weeks
27.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The reviewing process was relatively swift. However, the paper was 'pending editorial decision' for at least three months. Considering that both reviewers recommended publication and very minor corrections the whole process could have been much faster.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014