Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
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.
6.0 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
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.
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
30.4 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
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.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Manuscripts are sent to non-expert reviewers.