Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
2012
Motivation: One of the reviewers recommended revision. This reviewer had read the text and the feedback was generally constructive and sensible. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript outright on grounds other than the content of the manuscript. The second reviewer's comments were a systematic deconstruction/rejection of the paper with little evidence that the paper had been read and the content understood. I contacted Russian Review and asked them to send me a copy of their instructions for peer reviewers and I was told they have none (!)