Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
It was clear from the reviews that they were not competent enough in the specific topic.
21.0 weeks
35.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The reviews were very helpful and constructive and were accompanied by useful editorial comments. The revision was sent to one of the three reviewers for another evaluation, which was then positive and the paper was accepted with minor revisions. The editorial handling was transparent and fair. The whole process took an acceptable amount of time.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Reason(s) for rejection were extremely vague, and didn't set this paper apart from others recently published in the same journal. I got the impression that the editor was biased against the work because it was a theoretical paper based on a theory they didn't like.
12.3 weeks
27.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
I was very impressed by the short turnaround time for the first round of reviews, which seemed rigorous and attentive. I also received very detailed and helpful comments from the editor. The only delay came after submitting the first revised version; I emailed the editor after about 10 weeks, and received an acceptance a week thereafter, asking for some further very minor revisions.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
The other major delay was in the time between acceptance and print. The paper was accepted in December 2013, and will not appear in a volume until May 2015 (17 months later).
Overall, it was a positive experience.
10.0 weeks
20.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011
Motivation:
The review process was quick, double-blind, and seemed fair. The requirements of the editors were based on the reviews and were justified. The only drawback was that one of the three reviews was extremely short and not helpful at all. In my opinion, the editors shouldn't have considered this a proper review.