Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
This review was not lengthy and no external review was done however, we did change the introduction one more time and this article is now under review at a higher quality journal... so who knows!
34.7 weeks
40.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The editor in chief and the associate editors replied to my requests when it was necessary. They are professional and very helpful. Furthermore, there was a problem concerning the proof service and after 10 minutes from my email, the editor in chief was in charge to fix the problem. I can be only grateful for her very professional support, she understood the problem with the copyediting service and she took a position about it. Besides, the associate editor manage carefully the review process and also her comments were helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. Long review process but I am very satisfied about the successful conclusion of it.
15.1 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
It took one complete year. The communication with the editor was always fluid. However, the paper went through four unnecessary rounds and the editor just made comments at the end (did she read it before?). The review could be improved if the editor takes a more active role as a referee and provide feedback earlier in the process.
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
24.0 weeks
56.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
It was a long process, but overall the feedback was positive and improved the quality of the document.
17.0 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
After more than 4 months I received about 8 lines of comments from each of reviewers.
77.3 weeks
97.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
2015
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013