Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Editor Response: "While the Editors found your manuscript to be of interest, they felt that the inclusion of an in vivo component would greatly strengthen this study."
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation: The standard text was specially uninformative and unnecessarily impolite. Just to reject something without actually analysing the text does not need so much time: The e-mail was standard, praising their "rapid" pre-review process. I am an editor myself and consider this behaviour as a lack of respect towards the Authors