Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.6 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Review was reasonably fast, comments are more or less useful. Nevertheless, a quality of the paper has increased after the review.
7.6 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
1.7 weeks
1.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
4.9 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The review time per peer review round was very reasonable, but letting the process continue for so long did not seem very well motivated, as the reviewer was complaining about small details in the language (we/passive etc.), asking us to remove all the figures supporting our main conclusion and on the other hand requesting vast literature reviews about topics that were not central for the scope of the paper.
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
There were two reviewers. I got an impression that none of them took the time to read the manuscript attentively. The criticisms were regarding the methodology of research and the reviewer misinterpreted some details based on the report. Both reports were surprisingly similar, like they were written together.