Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
60.8 weeks
104.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
2021
Motivation: An absolute waste of time. A very long process that led to nothing but my proposed approach becoming obsolete. One of the reviewers asked to compare my proposed method with a Deep Learning approach, whereas not only that target approach was irrelevant but also I could not have access to the required hardware. Indeed I clarified that one major advantage of the proposed method was its computational simplicity and tested it against some of the state-of-the-art relevant methods. It took the associate editor 10 month to only be able to have one review from one reviewer that asked for additional comparison. But based on that single review my manuscript was rejected. Poor experience.
4.7 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
13.0 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2013
Motivation: The reviewers have done valuable comments that strengthened the paper.
5.4 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
7.0 weeks
16.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2013
Motivation: Our experience was good, the reviews were constructive (and kind) and, though the second review took a little longer than the first, we felt that, overall, response was very quick.