Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
26.0 weeks
45.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
Declining the manuscript after two rounds of review due to its length seems excessive.
36.0 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
It took 36 weeks to receive a single review. The justification of lack of a second review was that the Associate editor was unable to get a response from Reviewer 2. Period of 36 weeks is likely sufficient to find an alternative second reviewer in the case of lack of response.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
Moreover, the received review contains suggestion to make comparison with two works from mechanical engineering field (both works with same authors), which are with a weak connection to the work under review and provide clear hint for the identity of the reviewer. This can be considered as inappropriate reviewing practice.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2011
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
We had 2 positive reviews and one negative, and editor decided to reject our paper without a chance of a revision. The reviews were fast, unbiased and informative.