Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
30.1 weeks
30.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The review process was very slow, especially given the final decision was rejection.
8.0 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
One of the reviewers was not familiar with the research study design (diagnostic accuracy). The majority of this reviewers comments and questions related to RCT design. After addressing each comment and explaining diagnostic accuracy study design, the majority of comments after second review stated that the diagnostic accuracy study design should have been made more clear in the manuscript. This despite the fact that "diagnostic accuracy study design" was selected as the manuscript type in the online submission system, was included in the manuscript title, in the study design in abstract and in the manuscript, and in the statistical methods section. In addition the journal required submission of a completed STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy studies which was provided. It is concerning that external reviewers for high impact factor scientific journals do not appear to recognise different research study designs and that editorial decisions may be influenced by this.