Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.7 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
Overall, my manuscript was handled well and swiftly. It was send to two reviewers who provided constructive feedback as well as praise for the experiment. I was very happy with the whole review process.
11.0 weeks
23.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The 1st round of the review process was quite okay - we received some constructive feedback and we resubmitted in due time.
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
The 2nd round was not really satisfying - after we submitted, it took the editorial team 1 month to send our manuscript to the reviewers. We have really no idea why forwarding the revised MS took that long. The actual review was okay, though. One reviewer was overdue but not unbearable.
The overall quality of the MS was indeed improved but the experience of the editorial process was so so. I may or may not recommend others to submit their work to SCAN...
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
A pity, but the process was quick and clear.
1.9 weeks
1.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The review process was very quick wich is good. The quality of the two reviews we recieved however was not acceptable. One reviewer had compiled a list of what he called "major issues" that included questions that are at best of very minor relevance but mostly methodlogical questions that the reviewer had failed to retrieve from a table, the text and the supplement. In addition, the reviewer did not have a clue about the methods used and advised things that are statistically just wrong. Reviewer 2 was not as bad but also had only limited knowledge in the field. We wrote to to the editors asking for a third reviewer, but recieved a standard reply. There was basically nothing, the we could make use of for revising this manuscript for submission to the next journal.
8.7 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2011
Motivation:
I found the process tidy and the reviewers' comments very helpful. The overall duration of the process was too long to encourage many new submissions from my lab, however. The nearly 18-month delay between manuscript acceptance and the publication date was particularly impractical. Still, it's a good journal and I believe our manuscript was much improved through the review process.