Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
16.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
25.3 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
The editor did an exceptional job and summarized all four review reports very nicely for us. The reviews, for the most part, were also very helpful, suggesting theoretical as well as methodological imrovements that found their way into the eventually published version of this manuscript.
One review, however, was outright offensive ("I have no idea how someone could stufy this in the first place") and contained little substance. Since this seems to be a reviewer characterstic rather than a journal characteristic, the overall experience was still good, albeit it took quite a while to get the reviews.
One review, however, was outright offensive ("I have no idea how someone could stufy this in the first place") and contained little substance. Since this seems to be a reviewer characterstic rather than a journal characteristic, the overall experience was still good, albeit it took quite a while to get the reviews.
21.1 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Two reviewers split, a third was brought in. In essence, the third reviewer didn't like the methods used in a small part of the paper because he believed - dogmatically - that his own were the only way to go.