Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.0 weeks
33.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The first peer-review was quite long, but if that is on the journal, the reviewers or an issue getting reviewers, I don't know. After that, I think the reviewers did an excellent job providing high-quality reviews that improved the article.
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
Fair review - they identified clear weaknesses, which were mostly manageable, although too frequent or widespread for the editor to warrant a revision.
15.2 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
The data used in the study was public domain data from the internet. However, the journal has a rigid policy of requiring all papers to be considered by an ethics committee. This was clearly unnecessary in this case, and something I have never before encountered.