Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.0 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
I recently submitted a manuscript to a journal. After about five days of waiting, the editor sent it out for review to two referees.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
The first reviewer responded positively, appreciating the content but suggesting a few revisions for improvement. Their comments were constructive and encouraging. However, the second reviewer’s response was very different. They requested major revisions, but their language was harsh, discouraging, and at times impolite.
Despite the unpleasant tone, I carefully addressed every point raised, making all the requested changes and providing detailed responses to their concerns. Once I resubmitted, the manuscript was sent back to only one reviewer — the same one who had demanded major revisions. Unfortunately, even after I had thoroughly revised the paper, this reviewer was still dissatisfied and dismissed the revised version.
This whole process felt like a waste of time and effort. It was disheartening to see my work judged in such a one-sided and unconstructive way. Given this experience, I do not plan to submit future papers to this journal.
21.9 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2022
Motivation:
The reviewers' reports were very helpful and improved the quality of my paper. But after two rounds of blind reviews (by 3 reviewers), the editor said they were not happy with the quality of the reviewers so they started reviewing my manuscript on their own again and again until I decided to withdraw as it was the opposite of the concept and philosophy of "blind peer review".
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2015
Motivation:
All three reviews were positive and constructive. In an ideal world, I would have revised the paper, but it overlapped with my very busy time. The editorial office was firm with the deadline, so I decided to take the comments that were easily addressable, and submit the paper to a different journal.
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012
17.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Two reviewers were extremely positive. One reviewer raised one major concern, but the editor was quite explicit about how to address that question. Right after we followed that suggestion, the paper was accepted.