Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
2020
8.1 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2017
17.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
2017
Motivation: I did not hear back from the journal for over a month after the initial submission, so I wrote to find out if it was being sent to review or not. They informed me that it had been sent out for review, but it would have been nice if they would have told me that instead of having to seek out that information. Then it took over 4 months to receive the outcome of the first review, which I find excessive. The worst though is that since it was accepted I waited over 2 months for a first proof, which was full of errors, I requested a second proof be sent, which took 3 weeks and was again full of errors, some of which were the same as the previous proof... it is still yet to be published almost 4 months after accepting it and will now be pushed back to the May issue (6 months from accepted date).
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2014
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The reviewer comments were inconsistent in responses, which made it both hard (I'm sure) for the editor to justify acceptance and also hard to revise in preparation for submitting to another journal. One reviewer thought it should be accepted and provided 1/3 of a page of minor comments, while the other seemed to have a chip on their shoulder about something and provided 6 pages of very specific comments, some having nothing to do with content actually within the paper and recommended rejection.
n/a
n/a
55 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
7.6 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2012
Motivation: The guidelines are clear and the submission process is very straightforward and does not waste time (e.g., the author submits one PDF as an email to the editor). The reviews were prompt, constructive, and mostly fair. The handling editor also made a correct judgement call to ignore one of the unfounded concerns of a reviewer who did not understand a key point. The review was prompt and all emails throughout the process were clear. A refreshing experience.