Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.0 weeks
34.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Editor was balanced and appreciative. Quality of review reports was reasonable.
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).
The editor apologised for the difficulty in finding reviewers (one or more who agreed to review did not actually return the review reports). Because of that, the process took much longer than their average turnaround times (which they usually report at the beginning of each year in an Editorial).