Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The reviewer comments are great and they can be modifiable, but the editorial decision was reject.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
It took too long for a desk rejection.
3.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
It went out to review on the day of submission itself. Its editorial handling and the review process was fast
7.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
The process of publishing the article went well and quickly, and I think the comments of the reviewers for the revision were correct and fair.
4.9 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The two reviewers made fair points and the comments were very critical. We think they did not understand the innovative aspect of the manuscript, and the limitations we had.
12.9 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2023
Motivation:
The first review round took three months, and despite that there was only one reviewer. The first round of reviews seemed fair, but in the second and third round the reviewer got hung up on something relatively minor that should have made them reject the manuscript outright if it was such a dealbreaker. The editor did not intervene in any way. Overall, the process took six months, during which the editor ignored most of our emails. Will never submit here again.
7.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
7.7 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
The review process could be faster. The reviewers comments were overall very good, so the rejection was a little unexpected.
4.3 weeks
7.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Great experience. The review process was fast and reviewers raised good and constructive points.
0.0 weeks
0.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
- The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper.
- We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor
- We did communicate with the editor in chief in advance about the suitability of the topic, however still one reviewer comment about the scope of the manuscript
- I believe the review process is not very professional
-The article was rejected with not proper explanation
- We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor
- We did communicate with the editor in chief in advance about the suitability of the topic, however still one reviewer comment about the scope of the manuscript
- I believe the review process is not very professional
-The article was rejected with not proper explanation
4.0 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
very fast review process
9.0 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
4.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The overall process was reasonable and took less than a month to get a response from reviewers. After minor revision submission, the journal took 10 days for final decision of acceptance. Overall very satisfied.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
4.1 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
It was a great experience - editorial handling and review time was extremely fast, reviews were useful and reasonable, and we had the paper online within about 3 months of initial submission!
9.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
We had two reviewers for this paper. One was very good but the other seemed to understand little about the analysis and have read almost nothing in the subject area, as was clear from his/her comments. Yet this reviewer was given a lot of weight in the review process by the editor. This paper was part of a special issue where I was co-author on a number of other papers. My experience with these other papers was similar. The choice of reviewers was baffling for the most part. The other papers in this issue went through very quickly (though compromising the review quality in my opinion), while this one was very slow but still lacking in review quality.
6.0 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
After initial rejection, we were allowed to resubmit after emailing the editor to ask for clarification on the decision and stating that we would be able to address the reviewers concerns. Our request was handled very graciously and after resubmission our manuscript was accepted with minor revisions.
6.1 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
Quick turnaround from editor. We felt time to resubmit was quite short given author availability so soon after the festive period but we managed this OK.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
Reviewer comments were in general helpful and did improve the article. Two reviewers had feedback that was genuinely helpful while the third review was mainly of the form of "use this word because I don't like that word" which is rather subjective and necessitated a lot of quite unproductive work to address.
3.3 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Wonderful experience. The speed and efficiency of the journal and editor was outstanding.
5.1 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The review process was really fast and reviewer´s comments really helped to further improve the manuscript. Processing after second resubmission and proof-reading was within 11 hours, so increadible fast.
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
In spite of the unfavorable outcome I appreciate the very fast editorial processing.
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
The handling editor clearly articulated the reason of the rejection: "This work does appear to be of a high quality and is interesting but is outside the current scope of the journal."
I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
I appreciate the editor's super fast decision.
2.7 weeks
2.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The communication was fast. The reviewer concentrated only on the weaknesses of the study (I mean the speculative part of the dscussion) and did not take attention to the other, well substantiated mertits. Despite the final decision was reject, I think the review and the editorial handling was fair.
5.7 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
26 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013