Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2022
4.0 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
4.9 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
3.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Following an internal editorial assessement it was decided that the study is limited in scope and novelty, and would be more suitable for a more specialised journal.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: Although I was not satidfied with the quality of the internal editorial assessement I appreciate the speedy editorial handling.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: 26 weeks, no comment ......
4.6 weeks
5.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
10.9 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Good referee comments, which improved the manuscript; yet the editor did not seem to dare taking decisions. Despite positive remarks, he insisted on several rounds of further revision before it was finally accepted.
3.0 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: This was an invited paper and it was handled properly. Timely review, fairly adequate comments and a reasonable decision.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
4
Rejected
2015
Motivation: Quick peer review process, good comments, but due to lack of novelty rejected.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: It took the editor two weeks to decide to reject it immediately, without peer-review. The decision was poorly motivated on one incorrect argument; it seemed to be based largely on political reasons.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The decision was disappointing, and I do not agree with a large part of the reviewers criticism, but the Journal was fairly fast and professional on handling the MS.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
9.6 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015