Reviews for "Lab on a Chip"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Lab on a Chip 19.0
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected
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
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
Motivation: The review process was extremely fast. The reviews were very positive and asked only for very minor changes to the manuscript.