Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.6 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Very fast review process and expectations were made very clear by the Reviewers and Editor. The reviews were deservedly critical but helpful for revisions. A great, professional experience.
15.0 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Fast review process. While the quality of the reviews was high and have contributed to a better article in the end, I don't think the tone of the reviewers merited a reject. The only negative aspect of the review process was thus the rather subjective decision made by the editor to reject, despite reviewers suggesting revise and resubmit.
7.1 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Smooth process, and editor commenting on which changes are the most important ones.
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Swift handling. Relevant reviewers were selected.
17.9 weeks
22.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Very responsive editor, and excellent comments from knowledgeable peers that helped to frame the paper a bit better.
11.0 weeks
37.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
After revising and resubmitting the manuscript it took the editors half a year to get back to me with a decision. Apart from that, the quality of reviews was high and the overall process was good.