Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
23.6 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The revision took more than 7 months to be accepted. The reviewers' comments were efficient though.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 353.0 days
Drawn back
2023
Motivation:
Did not hear any response from the editor for a year, so withdrew my manuscript. Will submit elsewhere.
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
8.3 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The reviewers found that my paper was not novel.
19.4 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The review process was satisfactory, although quite slow.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
29.7 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
After 7.5 months, the editor only managed to obtain one external review. This one review was mildly negative; most comments were related to stylistic concerns or requests for clarification of some points. The reviewer
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.
The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.
17.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
My paper was submitted as part of a Special Issue. I did not receive any peer review feedback.
10.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The review process was quite fast and very useful for the paper improvement. The reviewers comments were clear and well-justified. After paper accepting, the editing process was fast and very simple.
30.4 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
17.4 weeks
18.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
11.3 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015