Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: "However, in view of published work on the development and characterization of tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound, we feel that this study does not reach the high threshold in degree of advance that we look for in comparable manuscripts that we consider for external peer review."

They were really fast with the editorial process (2 days, with one day being on a weekend). Whether they are correct or not in terms of how big an advance is needed is of course debatable.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: Quick and efficient review process, with clear reasons for the rejection.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: It was rejected within 10 minutes. This is both good and bad. They said it was because the topic has already been reviewed previously, so it did not meet their threshold of scientific need.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: Rejected by the editor within one business day. The editor did give detailed reasons, although you might not agree with them. This journal will only send 8.2% of submitted paper for external review (according to their twitter post), so they do turn down most of the submitted papers. Considering the editors’ workload, I won’t be surprised to see my submission got turned down without, in my opinion, fully evaluated.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: A straight reject from one of the editors, who stated that we using only one dataset in our study was not enough to get to the review stage.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: It took a while for them to make a decision, but the response was very detailed with clear reasons given for the rejection.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018