Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.1 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2025
Motivation: The process was quick, and we received two constructive reviewer reports. Overall, we were pleased with the feedback, which included only minor comments to address.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation: transfer to other ACS sister journals was given
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
3.9 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
3
Accepted
2021
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
2.4 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Rejected
2020
2.9 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation: Rather long time for a desk rejection, a transfer offer was given
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
5.6 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: There were two different papers submitted. In both cases the time the editors took was about 3 weeks.
In my opinion this is a bit too much time for "immidiate" rejection of a 4 pages letter.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Fast editorial turnaround. We felt the editors' reasons for rejecting were not unreasonable.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013