Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
11.7 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The review reports we have received were great: detailed, useful, polite, and encouraging acceptance after the reasonable revisions. The communication with the editor was pretty good as well. However, we also feel that the process should have been shorter: receiving the reviews took the time (e.g. more than a month after revising the paper appropriately and agreeing to nearly all the comments of the reviewers), and on a few occasions the editor's turnaround was not very quick (e.g. it took a few weeks to send the paper for review).
23.6 weeks
31.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Most of the review reports were of high quality and supportive. They have helped to improve the paper. However, the first round took long (more than 5 months), but that's not necessarily the fault of the editor or the journal. The communication with the editor was perfect.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The paper was rejected by the editor arguing that it was out of the scope of the journal. That is fair, the decision was well-argued and polite, but it would be better if a desk rejection did not take that much time.
15.4 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
After submitting the revised version in November 2013, we got contacted by the journal on 15-01-2014. The editor had noted that a large portion of reviewer 1's comments were excluded from the decicision letter of 31-08-2013. He attached the full comments of reviewer 1 and asked for a detailed response to these comments, as soon as possible.
We submitted the second revised version of the paper on 27-01-2014.
As such, due to the journal's mismanagement the whole proces lasted at least a few months more.
I couldn't specify this particular process in the questions above.
We submitted the second revised version of the paper on 27-01-2014.
As such, due to the journal's mismanagement the whole proces lasted at least a few months more.
I couldn't specify this particular process in the questions above.
27.0 weeks
57.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
9.7 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012