Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: The peer review process has heavily improved my MS, and I am pretty thankful for such a rigorous process and to the reviewers.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Drawn back
2021
4.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Very professional, very fast turnaround time. I was very impressed.
10.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2019
3.7 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process was fast and efficient.
2.7 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
Motivation: I could not believe when I held two lengthy reviewers' reports in my hands within less than three weeks after submission. The revision was drawn out somewhat by the birth of my daughter, and the second viewing took the reviewers a bit longer. However, the entire process was fast, efficient, of high quality, and agreeable.
8.7 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2016
4.0 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
4.3 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
2
1
Rejected
2010
Motivation: The reviewers, at least one of them wanted to reject the paper from the beginning, and he/she attached very much to this idea and consequently followed that. The review was filled alway: i feel that, i feel those thing - nothing objective. It seems pure competition and in that situation he/she had the right to act on this very much.