Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.9 weeks
32.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
We received two reports. The first one was focused and asked for additional robustness tests to add credibility to the findings. These comments were useful and helped us improve the paper. The second report clearly indicated that the reviewer did not "liked" the paper and provided negative and somehow irrelevant comments regarding the methodology. Both reports had relatively contradictory perspectives about the paper.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
We got two review reports. One of them clearly exposed some of the weaknesses of our paper and helped improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. The other one, however, was rather contemptuous as the referee indicated that he (or she) would not bother commenting the statistical and methodological aspects of the paper because of the small size of the sample. Thus, the second report was not helpful at all. Overall, the review provess was rather satisfying both from the timing and the referees comments perspective.