Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.4 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
5 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015
Motivation: We had five reviews that really improved our paper. One of the reviewers didn't agree with the rest, but the editors solved this issue and finally published the paper. Our only complaint was the excesive publication fee.
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
2016
Motivation: This time we only had two reviews and our paper was directly accepted. We miss the deepness of the reviews of other times in Sensors.
2.7 weeks
2.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: This time the reviews were both fast and rigorous.
3.4 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: We received 3 reviews. One of them was excellent. We did a lot of work to satisfy this reviewer opinion. Another reviewer was focusing in minor details, which also improved the paper. The last one did a short review. So on the average the review was OK. The first and second reviewer demands really improved a lot the paper, so we were happy with that. Once the manuscript was accepted, the proof-reading and final editing was extremely quick and efficient.
9.3 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Clean, speedy, rigorous review process. Tough but fair. Most of the comments from the reviewers contributed to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Great follow up by the associate editor. Overall a good experience.
10.6 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: The review process was fairly smooth. I have only few problems with one of the reviewer tha in my opinion was not a great expert in the field of the manuscript