Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
17.9 weeks
50.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
The review process took way too long and the reviewers' suggestions did not improve the paper substantially.
5.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
an alternative explanation for the data was briefly given, ruling the paper uninteresting for publication
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
4.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reviewer comments were constructive and helpful, the rejection came down to perception of statistical power.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
8.4 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Editor was careful, balanced, and reasonable. Review reports were satisfactory. Speed of whole process was good.
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Editor suggested submission to a specialty Journal, which be did.
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
Although the manuscript was rejected and I disagreed with some of the criticisms, I felt the reviews were thoughtful and thorough. Ultimately, the manuscript was rejected based on the associate editor's opinion that it the impact of the results wasn't substantial enough for this journal.