Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Fast, reasonable reviews from expertised reviewers from same research area. One reviewer pointed out one suggestion that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript
2.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Both reviewers provided feedback that was not particularly constructive. One reviewer suggested citing several papers from the same author, which did not contribute new information and appeared to be self-citations. The other reviewer made suggestions that were not in alignment with the current literature and established knowledge in the field, leading us to reject most of their recommendations. On a positive note, the review process was completed very quickly, though this speed came at the cost of receiving poor-quality reviews.
5.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Fast review and fair points raised by the referees.
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected based solely in one reviewer comments'. The comments of the single reviewer do not justify rejection, as they are overall very superficial and not very critical.
2.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
11.6 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted