Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
18.4 weeks
37.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
The manuscript was dealing with a controversial topic, which was critical on the government of some countries. In the second round, both reviewers were biased. Political bias and disagreement dominating >80% of the comments, while <20% of the comments window-dressed the review comments appealing to research method (thus making it sound - while every method have got its strength and weaknesses).
I made an appeal to the editor, highlighting the ethical issues in the review process (An appeal was allowed according to the website). But the editor provided a generic rejection letter with fairly high rate of GPT-generated (as per GPTZero and ZeroGPT), which made me skeptical on whether he seriously considered my appeal, or he has done his job.
I made an appeal to the editor, highlighting the ethical issues in the review process (An appeal was allowed according to the website). But the editor provided a generic rejection letter with fairly high rate of GPT-generated (as per GPTZero and ZeroGPT), which made me skeptical on whether he seriously considered my appeal, or he has done his job.
27.9 weeks
51.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
We had a difficult reviewer and one with more generic comments. The editor did not seem too much at ease to filter non-sensical requests from the useful contributions, but in the end we got a decent paper out.
29.4 weeks
49.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
97 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
16.7 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Failed to inspire the reviewers, and then one of the reviewers suggested rejection because of many minor issues. Comments are to the point and will help strengthen the paper.
18.9 weeks
40.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015