Reviews for "Physics Letters A"
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
| Physics Letters A | n/a | n/a | 63.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
| Motivation: Editor mentioned that he tried 8 reviewers but none of them agrees to review the manuscript. He think that the manuscript does not project a sense of importance that could warrant publication in PLA. | |||||||
| Physics Letters A | 6.0 weeks |
12.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Two reviewers suggested some minor changes before acceptance. Third reviewer feels that manuscript shows new results but suitable for more specific optical journal. After revision manuscript was accepted. | |||||||
| Physics Letters A | 6.1 weeks |
6.1 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 3 (good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Physics Letters A | 30.4 weeks |
60.8 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Physics Letters A | 9.4 weeks |
9.4 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Theoretical papers are sent to referees who are experts in experiment and vice versa. Referee reports are not logical with respect to the content of the manuscript and mostly motivated by the own ideas of the referees. | |||||||
| Physics Letters A | 10.0 weeks |
10.0 weeks |
n/a | 1 | 0 (very bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers. | |||||||
@scirev