Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.0 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2018
4.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Editor-in-chief answered promptly and was helpful. Online tracking system is functioning well. We feel that the review process increased the overall quality of the paper. Reviewers were familiar with the area of research and comments were thorough and knowledgeable, and took only 4 weeks.
15.9 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
1
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The editor for this paper (who is also the editor in chief) waited 20 days to issue his rejection letter, after all reviews have been submitted.
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The reviewers had no interest in the subject of the paper, and it was obvious that they only read the first 1-2 pages and the conclusions. It took 10 months until the last reviewer submitted his comments. The main rejection argument by the assigned editor was that the paper is not suitable to the journal. He was unaware of several related publications published by the same journal, and that the current submission was a continuation of a paper I published with the same journal back in 2002 (which since has been cited 80 times). The problem that Mechanism and Machine Theory has is that it receives way more many manuscript than its editors can properly handle (850 submissions in 2015 up from 479 in 2010). Consequently, the quality of the reviews has plummeted. Elsevier should consider splitting Mechanism and Machine Theory into two different journals.
16.0 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
Motivation: Although, it took so much tme, the review process has considerably enhanced the content and quality of the paper.
18.1 weeks
40.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
2012
2.6 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2012