Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.3 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
16.1 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The two review reports received were largely accurate and helpful. I have two concerns with the general editorial handling.
1) Nine days after the initial submission, I received a request from the same journal to review another manuscript. While this was not suitable for me, I felt more obliged than usual, as I suspected that the review request might have come from the same associate editor handling my paper. Normally, one would know, but in this case, the identity of the handling editor was not revealed until the final decision (of the first submission) was made, 113 days after submission! While I am generally happy to review manuscripts, and the one assigned to me fit well, it felt like a little bit of a "blackmail" situation. (On a side note, after submitting my review of that manuscript on time, that manuscript was ready for decision for around four months before a decision was taken!)
2) It is not acceptable that a journal, that allows their reviewers 14 days to complete a report, takes such long time to reach a decision!
1) Nine days after the initial submission, I received a request from the same journal to review another manuscript. While this was not suitable for me, I felt more obliged than usual, as I suspected that the review request might have come from the same associate editor handling my paper. Normally, one would know, but in this case, the identity of the handling editor was not revealed until the final decision (of the first submission) was made, 113 days after submission! While I am generally happy to review manuscripts, and the one assigned to me fit well, it felt like a little bit of a "blackmail" situation. (On a side note, after submitting my review of that manuscript on time, that manuscript was ready for decision for around four months before a decision was taken!)
2) It is not acceptable that a journal, that allows their reviewers 14 days to complete a report, takes such long time to reach a decision!
21.7 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
After three months, the ms had not yet left the editor for review. After several attempts to contact the journal, the publisher and editor-in-chief eventually got back to us, regretted the unacceptable handling so far, and promised that the ms should be reviewed shortly and handled rapidly. That did not happen. After another two months the editor was not near a decision, and only a single referee report had been produced (the standard time for a review assignment for MPE being, to my knowledge, two weeks). At that point, after growing dissatisfaction from us, the editor-in-chief stepped in and made an executive interim decision (rejection, resubmission considered) based on a single referee report (regrettably of rather low quality). After resubmission, however, the ms was handled by the original editor, and accepted without further review after only two and a half weeks.
5.4 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The review process was relatively swift. The reviewers were fair. The editor handled the paper from first submission to its appearance online very well and communicated with us regularly and clearly.