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
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The main concern of the reviewers was the statistical power of our reported experiments. The manuscript included open data (and materials), so it was directly possible for the editor and both reviewers to confirm their suspicion. Alas, this did not happen. When I resubmited the paper to another journal, I made sure to include the observed power in the corresponding data analysis paragraph of my manuscript. Median power was .94.

The editor rejected the paper for the above-stated reason and because "the manuscript does not fit the theme of the journal". Needless to say, this was not a positive review experience for me. Apart from this major flaw, the reviews were short and without much substance, although they pointed out some interesting references to me. This is why I avoided the minimum rating of 0.