Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The reasons for rejection were clear and coherent, but somewhat at odds with the journal's statement of scope.
20.3 weeks
28.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I was deeply impressed by how quickly and smoothly this was handled. The reviews were extremely rigorous, and while they required a huge reworking of the paper to address, they were still very encouraging. The editors were very transparent and prompt in communications, and said that the revision would go to the Associate Editor, who would either approve it or send it back to the reviewers; I appreciated this level of communication about the process. The time between acceptance and assignment to a volume for publication was shorter than I would have expected.
24.1 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The process was slow, but much of the time was due to delay in starting revisions on our part. The first reviews were very mixed: two were extremely positive, and the third was mean and generally unhelpful. The mean review asked for a lot of changes that we didn't think would improve the paper, and many of them are things we were asked to change back during the second round of reviews. Overall, we thought the editors handled the situation extremely well, though, and the paper was much improved as a result.
17.9 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.