Reviews for "Microporous and Mesoporous Materials"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 4.6
weeks
6.4
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Editors and reviewers know the topic quite well
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 43.6
weeks
92.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
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).
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 17.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted
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.