Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
In advance, I presented the paper at the EGOS conference, incorporating virtually all feedback on the short paper, the long paper and the presentation (feedback was great and constructive). Then I submitted the article to OS, waited three weeks and received three totally destructive sentences that the paper was poor quality and immature (after someone apparently looked at the paper for probably five minutes), leaving me without any constructive comments or arguments on how to improve the paper.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Received a useful desk rejection with extensive editorial comments.
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
n/a
n/a
42 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
Although the paper was rejected, the feedback I received from the editor was very constructive, elaborate, and helpful for further developing the paper.
n/a
n/a
52 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
The editor stated that they normally do not take this long to respond and an apology was given for the delay.