Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
The assigned editor decided to reject the manuscript without sending it to further review, because they considered it was out of the journal's scope.
3.0 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
The reviewers had difficulty understanding the concepts presented in the paper. As a result, the paper had to be revised and reviewed in two rounds. A number of extra calculations were added in the appendix which the authors felt were not necessary because it seems too detailed. The reviewers came with preconceptions about modeling content uniformity and seemed to be dismissive about the ability to predict it. The authors had to explain the model is great detail and perform calculations as requested by the reviewers to convince them the method is valid. Ultimately I think the quality of the research paper did improve, but it became quite lengthy due to added explanations and extra calculations.