Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.4 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
I perceived the quality of the review as disappointing. To my opinion, the overall conclusions were merely based on perceptions/opinions about the content and context instead of a proper understanding of both. Several comments on the content were incorrect but stated as facts. Other comments I perceived as outside the purpose and scope of the paper. Some comments left the question: “Did the reviewer really read this article or only parts of it?” One reviewer was on the edge of being rude and offensive without giving a proper motivation. There may be valid reasons to reject a paper, but then, be relevant, precise and constructive. The quality of the review is by far not in proportion to the effort that was put into this work. It is not all bad. There are some valuable and constructive comments which I am grateful for. And I hold myself fully responsible for how others perceive my work.
n/a
n/a
49 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016