Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Delay too long in obtaining the decision of editors
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
7.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Three high-quality reviews (a bit delayed over christmas).
Friendly and responsive reviewer.
13.0 weeks
17.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: immediate rejection that took them 25 days!
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
8.7 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
6.5 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The review process was fair and had high scientific quality, I would recommend this journal to others. However I have to say that the online manuscript tracking system is a bit clumsy and doesn't provide much information.