Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
0
1
Rejected
2022
Motivation: Refereeing process was fast, but referee's report was awful. Five lines of report showing that the referee has neither read nor understood the paper at all. S/he said we were working on metric measure spaces, while literally in the abstract it was written "throughout the paper the measure space will never be asked to be metric".
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
1.0 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
3
Rejected
2017
25.1 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
3
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
52.7 weeks
52.7 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
0
Rejected
2014
Motivation: I feel that waiting over one year for a rejection and not getting a review is not appropriate.
n/a
n/a
55 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: The selected editor waited more than 50 days before even accepting to be editor. No specific comments were made on the papers
24.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2013
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
2013
Motivation: The review was inconsistent in its outlook and poorly expressed. It should have been sent to a second reviewer.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2010
39.1 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
5
Accepted
2011
Motivation: Positive experience in every respect:
- completely acceptable duration of the refereeing process for a journal of this quality (a little less than 9 months)
- Mathematische Annalen tries to keep their authors informed: we received an acknowledgement of receipt on the day of submission, we were informed immediately after the referee report was received, and just a few days later we were told about the final acceptance.