Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
90.1 weeks
105.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Handling was completely unethical. Writing that a work has 'not suitable level of rigour' without a single example of a mathematical errors/imprecision is nonsense. It prevents even resubmission to another journal: most likely, the same people are going to handle the work and think: 'oh, that is the same erroneous work, not even corrected', which would lead to another rejection without examination. Since this case concerns violation of basic scientific principles, it requires full transparency; thus a complete correspondence with the journal has been made public: https://users.mccme.ru/mskopenkov/other/lmp.html
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2021
44.4 weeks
44.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2021
12.9 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
17.7 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The process was quite fast but the report was not serious and quite offensive.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
The argument for the rejection was a conjecture made in 1997 and never proved.
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
The journal was fast and the review was seriuos