Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
I received two reviews and both were quite different and agreed only in their negative recommendation. One was very short indeed and stated very summarily in just three sentences that the paper was coherent and well-written, but did not contain groundbreaking insights. The other was lengthy and focused on my bad style of writing and the alleged incoherence of the paper, and offered some petty criticism on individual statements, but no general evaluation/appreciation of its overall merits/shortcomings. It appeared that de second reviewer had difficulties reading and understanding my text, a problem the first reviewer did apparently not have. The second reviewer boasted knowledgeability in the field, but the few remarks on subject-specific issues he made, raised my doubts about his overall competence. The editor's decision did not show any attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions between both assessments. It gave rather the impression of a machine-made summary made and sent in the wee hours.
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
We received a letter from the editor 4 months after the paper was submitted. The letter was saying that the article has not been evaluated favourable by the reviewers. We asked for the reviews, however, the editor refused to send them saying that the journal keeps the reviews confidential, which contradicts the Springer's Review Policy. After we connected Springer it turned out that this was desk rejection. It is impossible to check whether it really was, but even if it is, 4 months is too much time for desk rejection.