Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.6 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
review was too long ; ms sent on 28th september 2015; accepted as completed only on 15th october and first decision only on 04th january 2015
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
Even the evaluation was very long : 6 weeks for an acceptance without additional corrections
6.7 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Review process was fine, but unnecessary slow editorial process and quality check period after first submission and then again after second submission.
5.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The review process has been of help in improving the formal quality of data.
3.4 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Very slow review process. Manuscript was sent for review after 7 weeks of submission.
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
3.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
I think the review process was relatively shorter than other journal.
15.4 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Rather slow editorial and review process
19.5 weeks
19.5 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2014
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
It was decided to be outside the scope. Although we are generally satisfied, it is unfortunate that this decision was not made by the editor directly. As the review process went quickly, we did not loose to much time.
5.3 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
fast review process, good remarks of the reviewers. A downside was the long period of quality checking after the submission of the revised manuscript.
11.0 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015