Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.9 weeks
14.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
Review time was quick and review feedback quite helpful. Reviewers seemed to have required expertise, and were eager to help make the manuscript the best it could be. Communication with editor was fast and easy.
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
Here is one of the two reviews I received (the other one was constructive): "As far as I can tell, the author is proposing that a linear thermodynamic theory based on Onsager's seminal work may be more widely applicable than most scientist would think. Unfortunately, the author seems to have slightly incorrect understanding of what various terms and phrases mean, and hence by the third or fourth paragraph the paper devolves to an incoherent jumble of phrases that at least to me have little relation to one another. The author uses, e.g., the term linearity, without explaining what is assumed to linearly depend on what. Nowhere is the term Onsager reciprocity, as used in this paper, defined with any precision. The bottom line is that I can not identify any specific contribution of this paper." The editor accepted this review and decided to reject the paper on its basis.