Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Very smooth and prompt review process. Reviewers were thorough and seemed attentive to the details and message conveyed to the readers. The last round of reviews took a day to be addressed because I made a single word change that may or may not have been considered important. As an author, I feel like that unnecessarily delayed the process for two weeks. Small complaint, but should be noted.
5.7 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The reviewers seemed interested and informed on the topic. Feedback was generally constructive and aimed at increasing clarity.
From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time.
From start to finish, the process took approximately 6 months. Since two revisions were required, this seems an appropriate amount of time.
13.0 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
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.
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
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.