Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.4 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
The review process was overall good, with progress updates along the way. The editor made useful comments of their own. The reviews were relatively fast and of good quality, although one reviewer was difficult to satisfy on a minor issue.
4.0 weeks
6.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Reviewers suggested minor revisions that helped clarify the manuscript. Overall, a very good experience.
7.6 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The reviews were good. There were only some editorial suggestions.
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The review reports were not strong to reject the paper. These review reports were not even useful for improving the paper.
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
The Editor rejected the paper, although the Reviewer's comments seemed quite positive to me. I could not really understand the Editor's decision.