Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
2023
Motivation: The decision was clear, both reviewers recommended rejecting the paper. The editor agrees that the paper is not a fit for the journal or specific subfield... why not desk reject? Got detailed comments that will help us move forward, though!
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2018
Motivation: One reviewer didn't think this was novel enough, and that was enough to sink the paper.
13.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2017
4.9 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The review process was very quick and all comments were clear and fair. I may have been lucky that it was a slack time of year for reviewers (Dec/Jan) but as an author I could not have asked for more!
10.0 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process was fairly raid. Most comments were fair and the editor allowed me to argue that one or two comments should be ignored.
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
3
Rejected
2013
Motivation: There were two acceptance (revise&resumbmit) and one rejection, so the editor could give us chance (also considering that the paper was highly published at the end). Nevertheless, the reviews were of a good quality
5.9 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2014