Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The review process was not extra long despite the hard times of COVID pandemic.
The collected reviews were professional. One reviewer was supportive, however the others criticized that the topic is out of the scope of the journal. It was a bit strange that the strictest reviewer meticuously criticized some very-very minor points (like usage of synonims, or the color of a line in a figure) of the manuscript.
Anyway, we agreed that a part of the discussion is a bit out of the scope of the journal, so we considered some comments of the reviewers and submit the revised version to a different journal.
The collected reviews were professional. One reviewer was supportive, however the others criticized that the topic is out of the scope of the journal. It was a bit strange that the strictest reviewer meticuously criticized some very-very minor points (like usage of synonims, or the color of a line in a figure) of the manuscript.
Anyway, we agreed that a part of the discussion is a bit out of the scope of the journal, so we considered some comments of the reviewers and submit the revised version to a different journal.