Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: This manuscript may be of great interest to specialist but does on have general interest. I suggest a specialist journal would be more appropriate.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2021
5.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2021
10.6 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2022
Motivation: One of the reviewers did not fully agree to our data interpretation and asked us to reorganize the manuscript. We fully addressed his concerns in the revision, but I guess he would be still unhappy with our manuscript. The associate editor put aside his comments (which we couldn't find in the decision letter) and accepted our manuscript.
6.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: My initial submission was rejected with option to resubmit, which was always my intention. To me, this seemed a slightly harsh decision as the reviewers were both positive on the concepts and study, but requested major changes (which I was able to implement in good time - 6 weeks, which was less than the review time). Irrespective, the reviewer comments certainly contributed to the betterment of the article, which I thank them for. Following my resubmission of the article, the review process was very smooth, with the only exception of some terminology misunderstandings by one reviewer leading to the same comment appearing in the reviews of the manuscript.
Overall, I think Proceedings B has a very good submission and review process, although they do sometimes seem a bit keen to reject and offer resubmission rather than encouraging authors by granting major revisions (this being a trend I have noticed in previous submissions). This should not, however, discourage anyone from submitting to the journal, as the process itself is very well structured and there is ample support from the editorial and proofing staff.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2020
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
6.6 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
18.3 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
1
Rejected
2015
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
4.4 weeks
7.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The review process was overall very good and fast.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
16.1 weeks
27.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Longest review process I ever experienced, which made the overall process very unsatisfactory, despite the reasonable quality of the review reports.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: The editor board member did provide some constructive comments and alternative journals for future submission.
11.1 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
7.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The reviews were very helpful and the overall process was very fast.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: After a positive answer on our presubmission enquiry, surprisingly, the paper was rejected by the editorial board member who deemed it "too specialized".
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
3.6 weeks
3.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Excellent and timely handling. Good comments and the editor made some additional good points.
Proofreading stage was also very impressive and of high quality.
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The reviews were really helpful and encouraging, but the editor rejected the paper due to lack of impact.
6.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2015
24.0 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
2014
10.0 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014