Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.6 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
tl;dr: We could have saved so much time if one of the reviewers gave all of their suggestions in a single round.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
The good: We went through three rounds of revisions. Except for the first round, we got decisions within 3-4 weeks after submission. The editorial process was quick.
The bad: In the first round, the reviews were very poor, only asking us to reduce the size of a certain section. We complied and hoped that the manuscript will be accepted. But in the second round, probably the manuscript was sent to different reviewers who asked us to modify a few sections and provide explanations/justifications for various claims we made throughout the paper. One can argue that it improved the quality of the paper. In the next round, one of the reviews accepted the manuscript stating all of their concerns were addressed. However, the second reviewer gave us a completely new set of suggestions (which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Since we invested so much time in editing the manuscript, we decided to comply. In the next round, the editor sent the manuscript to a single reviewer and weirdly enough, the reviewer again gave us another new set of suggestions (again, which could have been provided in the previous round, as there was no correlation between the previous suggestions and the new ones). Despite that, the manuscript was accepted by the editor.
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2018