Reviews for "Lab on a Chip"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
Lab on a Chip	3.4 weeks	3.4 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Lab on a Chip	n/a	n/a	9.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)
Lab on a Chip	Motivation: The reason given by the editor was lack of significant novelty in terms of Lab-on-a-chip technology. He recommended to go for an application-oriented journal. The first decision time was very fast, which saves authors a lot of time.
Lab on a Chip	2.1 weeks	2.1 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected
Lab on a Chip	Motivation: We assumed we could resubmit after addressing their points, which we did the next year. This time, the same reviewer admits that we improved our work and that he is 'satisfied' but then suggested another journal, RSC Advances, altogether. Again, we received high scores for significance and quality. In the end, we regretted sending our work to this journal or our choice of reviewers. I think this journal is used to publishing a certain type of work within the area of Lab-on-Chip and is not general enough to accommodate all Lab-on-Chip works, and this part is not clear to us.
Lab on a Chip	19.0 weeks	19.4 weeks	n/a	3	2 (moderate)	1 (bad)	Rejected
Lab on a Chip	Motivation: The first round of the peer-review took very long. While the editor was fair with his decision following the first-peer review, an additional review process after the revision would have been much better instead of immediate rejection by the editor, given that a large number of experiments were performed during the revision and that the, by the editor demanded, additional experiment was not fitting the scope of the manuscript and normally counts as an own publication similarly large journals.
Lab on a Chip	5.3 weeks	9.6 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Lab on a Chip	Motivation: The first round of revision was totally reasonable. Although I responded to almost all the comments from the first round of reviewing, the second revision (probably a different person) gave the criticism, which led to the rejection. Although I did not think the criticism from the second revision was reasonable, I did not have a chance to rebut it.
Lab on a Chip	2.3 weeks	2.7 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Lab on a Chip	Motivation: The review process was extremely fast. The reviews were very positive and asked only for very minor changes to the manuscript.