Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.4 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Review rounds were speedy which I appreciate. Some reviewers were very good and others were not. The second round was a bit of a waste of time because they brought up new issues that were not raised the first time and were not related to the revisions, so that was irritating.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2015
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The review process took a lot of time. It took 2.5 months before they could find a reviewer. I would have appreciated it, if they had sent a short e-mail explaining why the review process took so long. Howevery, the editorial officer replied quikcly after my inquiry about the delay. This, as well as the apologies for the delay mentioned in the final decision, was much appreciated.
Although the reviewer's comment was positive with some remarks, I still was a little disappointed: He/she explained that a certain outcome of the study would have been more interesting for the jounal's readers. I was surprised to read this, as the outcome which the reviewer was referring to, was actually the main outcome of the study. It appeared the reviewer had not thoroughly read the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: The editor didn't assign reviewers for a very long time. After we inquired he asked us to send him some names, only to reject the paper without sending it for reviews, instead providing a "review" by a "member of the editorial team", who seemed to be clueless as to what the paper was actually about.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.