Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: Editors and reviewers know the topic quite well
Motivation: The dates entered in this review are approximate. The start and end are correct, which gives a total time of over 2 years for the review of the manuscript. This process was the worst I have experienced. The reviewers asked for one set of changes, and we addressed all of the their concerns. They did not indicate that we did not, but they returned with a second set of NEW criticisms and the editor did not want to give us an opportunity to address them. We found this absolutely outrageous and requested the opportunity to actually address the new criticisms before a final decision was made. This was allowed, but the reviewers sat on the manuscript for another year before agreeing that their concerns had actually been addressed. The review process was slow, arbitrary, and held hostage by one reviewer. The editor should have moved on and sought other reviewers when it became clear that the reviewer was using a passive-aggressive tactic to simply slow down the publication process (for no clear reason since we clearly addressed all concerns raised).
Motivation: The quality of the reviews was ok, although they were not very detailed. All in all, the whole process took much too long, it appeared that the editor was very slow in dealing with the submission.