Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.0 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
Most of the reviewers comments were suitable for the text and imporved the manuscript.
9.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The reviewers provided great insights in shaping the manuscript to be stronger. The comments were relevant to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. The swift and smooth review process was impressive.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The journal handled our manuscript quckly and the reviewers did a fine job. We were rejected and the reasons seemed plausible. One of the comments of one of the reveiwers were unexpected and a bit hard to agree on, but in general they pointed out weaknesses that allowed us to improve the manuscript for another attempt at another journal. One negative aspect: in the guideline for authors there were a couple of inconsistencies that made the submmission process more confusing and time-consuming then it should be.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
4.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Very constructive and respectful reviewers' comments, appreciative editor's comments, quick review process
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
6.0 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Overall a pleasant review process; good contact with the editor; swift responses to inquiries. Reviews were relevant and led to substantial improvement of the manuscript.