Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2024
Motivation: The journal was not able to find reviewers, and when he finally found a second one, this gave a very small and generic feedback. Basically, after 5 months waiting, only one reviewer reviewed my paper and solely decided for its rejection
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2023
26.0 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: It was terrible. First it was sent off to two reviewers and both had a few comments on it. We addressed them and resubmitted the paper. However, since the beginning it was clear that the section Editor did not read the paper at all. Then after we resubmitted it, we received the comments from three reviewers. The editor felt like asking one more reviewer. One reviewer from the first submission was happy with the revision and had no further comments. The additional reviewer had no comments at all (this tells you the poor selection of the reviewers) and the other reviewer from the first submission strangely enough this time had more comments and was not happy at all with the revision despite we replied to all their minor comments. Not only that but they also wrote a nasty comment to offend us and the Editor did not do anything about it. In the end the Editor rejected our paper without even reading it! What a poor Editorial work. I would certainly never submit any other paper to this journal.
14.0 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2021
16.9 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Our manuscript was sent to 3 external reviewers. From all of them, we received quite detailed comments. The reviewers clearly read the manuscript thoroughly and thought about potential issues. We were happy about the reviews. We felt that it was not necessary to send the manuscript for the second round of revisions since the first decision was only a "minor revision" decision, and all reviewers seemed happy about it. Moreover, we provided detailed answers to all of the points raised by the reviewers. Nonetheless, the second round of reviews was relatively fast, so it was OK in the end.
16.4 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
2018
Motivation: I found the revision process too long, but the revisions improved the ms.
4.1 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The reviewers were knowledgeable, thorough, clear on what they thought should be addressed and clarified and very much interested in improving the quality of the manuscript. Revisions required a lot of work but, in retospective, it was most definitely worth it. The editor was professional and everything has been handled in an excellent and timely manner.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2017
Motivation: Review speed was reasonably fast. However, one of the reasons why the manuscript was rejected was that a similar paper had been published in the same journal *after* we had submitted our manuscript. We inquired reconsideration of the editor decision immediately based on this ground, but it took almost two months and a lot of reminder emails to receive a response from the editor in chief, in which our concern was not addressed at all.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: I was not agree with a few of the referees' ideas, but they worked in a reasonable amount of time.
5.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
7.9 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The first reviews had not exactly grasped the subject of my paper, whereas this was more correctly appreciated after reading the revised version and the responses to the reviewers.
3.7 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Some methodological aspects of the study were not correct and the reviewers' suggestions were very useful