Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
In the first round of review, the referee provided a constructive report indicating that the results are novel and interesting, comments to improve the paper were provided and most of them addressed, a point-by-point response was provided.
After the revision and resubmission the associate editor decided to send the paper to another reviewer who only provided a "quick opinion" (no report at all). Most of the "heckler" comments were wrong or irrelevant to the novel part of the paper, so he suggested to reject the paper & the associate editor followed the new referee opinion to reject the paper.
All what they did was wasting my time and the original reviewer time and efforts.
After the revision and resubmission the associate editor decided to send the paper to another reviewer who only provided a "quick opinion" (no report at all). Most of the "heckler" comments were wrong or irrelevant to the novel part of the paper, so he suggested to reject the paper & the associate editor followed the new referee opinion to reject the paper.
All what they did was wasting my time and the original reviewer time and efforts.