Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: Review process was constructive and reasonably efficient. Initial decision letter was worded exceptionally poorly, making standard revisions seem like a doomed outcome.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: Very poor initial assessment. It seems that the editor did not understand the main message of the manuscript.
5.6 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The first round of reviews was fair and mostly constructive, the last round however was based on a reviewer who missed the point and required unnecessary work. The editorial team, otherwise very helpful and fair, should have stepped in at that point. In summary however, the manuscript was handled mostly fair and did improve by the review process.
5.7 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Drawn back
2013
3.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The managing editor was professional, courteous and fair, the reviewers tough and demanding but the experiments they requested substantially improved my paper.