Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The bad rating for the way the manuscript was handled reflects the actual reviewer's comments, which were inflammatory and insulting, but not the way the editor in chief handled the case, which was very good. We received an initial rejection based on gross misinterpretation of our data, combined with prejudice and ignorance on the side of the reviewers. When we pointed this out to the editor in chief, he agreed with us and overruled the external reviewer's negative recommendations and went on to accept the paper. In this case, we were lucky that the editor in chief was knowledgeable on the subject and intervened. Bad and prejudiced reviews would otherwise have blocked publication, which would unfortunately not have been the first time.