Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
52.7 weeks
53.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2023
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
Commendable reviews by the SIVP reviewers.
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The journal did not give proper credit to an additional author working on the revision. It seems highly unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This has a negative impact on the journal reputation.
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
The facts: the paper needed major work as suggested by the reviewers. For this reason, it required involving a colleague to handle particular aspects of the work itself. Therefore, an authorship change was proposed (as usual in the academic community) duly justifying it according to the editor procedures. However, the editor did not bother informing authors that they did not want to accept the authorship changes until the second round of review was completed and the paper was accepted. It would have been fair to either tell the original authors that the authorship change was not allowed BEFORE sending it out for review, or to give the possibility to the original authors to exclude the contribution of the new author before the review or allow them sort out the issue in another way. Otherwise, you end up in embarrassing situation for the original authors, as it actually happened. In conclusion, it seems really unethical not to give proper credit to all the contributors of the final published work. This should definitely impact on journal reputation, this is why sites such as scirev.org exists, thanks!!!
Immediately accepted after 19.1 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2016
17.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2010
Motivation:
The reviews were ok.