Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It was disappointing that the editor rejected the applied work based on something directly addressed in the associated (published) methods paper.
I suppose this illustrates that not all editors of this journal keep abridged of the state of the literature, and take shortcuts to reduce their workload.
I suppose this illustrates that not all editors of this journal keep abridged of the state of the literature, and take shortcuts to reduce their workload.
16.9 weeks
29.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The process overall was excellent, but the reviews took a lot of time.
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2.9 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The rejection was based mainly in one of the reviewers that pointed that it was not significant discovery without any argumentation (in only two sentences).