Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: Two reviewers expressed some doubts but were essentially encouraging. One review was so obnoxious as to prompt a query to the Editor on how to respond to such a discourteous and unprofessional review (s/he used terms like "ignorant", "naïve", "ridiculous", "self-serving" to describe us/our work!). The editor was extremely helpful and responsive in helping us to manage this difficult review. Overall I felt the Ed was not slavishly bound to reviewer recommendations and had sufficient flexibility and knowledge of the field to make a reasoned and rapid decision on our paper.
Motivation: good reviews (critical, constructive, friendly) and relatively quick handling.