Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 2.0 days
Drawn back
2022
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
28.1 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2017
28.1 weeks
28.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2017
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: After 12 weeks I contacted the editor to check on the manuscript's progress. Received immediate answer from the editor and 2 weeks after I had the first review.
There were only two reviewers, and both referees had very good comments, although one referee was not very polite.
One week after was accepted.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The editor's letter was fair, but I do not fully agree with the reasons of rejection. Limited geographical scope was used as an argument. However, if you check articles in recent issues of the journal, this argument does not hold. I do not have the feeling that my manuscript was sufficiently checked for its fit into the journal. The editor was simply not interested in the topic and deemed it not important enough. I do not think I will try this journal again.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: The editor explained what was wrong about the manuscript, and advised some brief changes that could be made in order to be considered for peer-review in the same journal.
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The journal is rapid in its review process, the editors are friendly and willing to help at all times.
All our concerns were resolved immediately.
It is a very serious journal
15.1 weeks
20.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Prompt and appropriate response by the Editor, but poor work from the reviewers. Time from first submission to final acceptance (5.5 months) is too long and not really compatible with needs to spread scientific information.