Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
24.4 weeks
37.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
It took a very long time to process the submission and if I did not email the editor, it could take even longer. Two reviewers offered very limited ideas to improve the paper and so, the review of the RR submission should not have taken a long time but it did. Again, I had to email the editor who seem to be too busy to handle.
17.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The manuscript took almost a month to be processed due to it being un-submitted for formatting "issues" that are not laid out in the submission guidelines. The review quality was exceptionally poor with one reviewer making methodological comments without knowing anything about quantitative methods. Another reviewer did not read past page 12.
14.5 weeks
14.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
It's a journal that offered reviews in a timely manner. If only they all did.
10.9 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reviews were poor quality. I had one reviewer who only wrote a single sentence. Another reviewer during the first round of reviews made untrue assumptions about what was in my publicly available, well known data set. After I corrected him/her in the response to reviewers, that reviewer continued asking me to do analyses for data I didn't have!
6.9 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Quick, but one of the reviewers was clearly not an expert on the topic.
44.0 weeks
44.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The time under review was unacceptably long. Two reviewers actually reviewed the paper, one gave no feedback and the third stated it was a good paper.