Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.9 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
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
4
4
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
5
5
Accepted
2012
17.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
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.