Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
39.3 weeks
39.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The subject of our paper was not relevant to the current concerns of the journal, but we had chosen this journal based on some relevant articles in its previous volumes. The journal has sent us a very fast feedback with some propositions for guiding us to select a more relevant journal. This fast and convincing response shows the regularity and discipline of this great journal.
6.4 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Great. It is quite popular and well-known Journal.
4.3 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
In the past couple of years many journals are finding it harder to find reviewers, especially in interdisciplinary subjects. Although almost all of them have jumped on the Open Access bandwagon to raise funds, they have cut back on the processing time by having junior and/or unqualified associate editors make quick decisions about whether to even send out papers for external review. This is not good for Science.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
My ms presents a view against a stronly held concnesus. The way I wrote it was provocative, and maybe offensive to many. So a rejection was expected. However, the reviewer recommended rejection by twisting the views of both what I criticize, and mine. I thought it was unfair and wrote a rebuttal to the editor. Never hear back from the editor about my rebuttal!