Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.4 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
In general, it was a worth experience, except the time elapsed for the first decision. Furthermore, one of the reviewers, in my opinion, was incisive in excess, including irrelevant comments e.g. to use 2cm instead 20mm, eight instead 8, and so on. This kind of revisions don't contributed at all to improve the manuscript but difficulted the solutions of mistakes and delayed the publications of scientific results.