Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The editors were rapid in their decision to send the article to review. The article was sent to relevant referees who offered constructive criticism and highlighted valid points of the study which needed further analysis. We were surprised to receive major revisions given the scope of the work which was actually necessary; however this is only semantics. On revision of the article, both editors and referees were punctual with their final comments, allowing the article to proceed in to publication in a timely manner.
4.6 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Review process was streamlined and the editors answered all queries promptly. Referees offered meaningful and constructive critical analysis of the manuscript. As few changes were necessary, both editors and reviewers were able to rapidly turn over the second review, and the publishing editors were equally swift in their online publication of the article.