Reviews for "Nutrition Reviews"
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
| Nutrition Reviews | 13.0 weeks |
30.4 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 5 (excellent) |
2 (moderate) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: After submitting revisions and waiting a couple of months, we received a second revision except it had exactly the same comments which had already been addressed. There was a bit of back and forth with the journal. It should have been a quicker process because there was only a single minor revision for the manuscript, which we addressed promptly, yet it took about 6 months to get it accepted from initial submission. | |||||||
| Nutrition Reviews | 24.0 weeks |
24.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: The time it took was exceptionally long (24 weeks), and resulted in only 1 reviewer report. The editor apologized for the long waiting time, but it still was a major drawback for this paper. | |||||||
@scirev