Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.1 weeks
5.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The process was really fast and the reviewer reports were helpful.
10.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Quick and professional handling by editors. Constructive reviews.
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The reviewers were all experts in the field and enable to propose references to further discuss our arguments.
Their carefull reading pointed tiny points (such as the use of abreviation) that still need improvements.
Their reviews help the manuscript revision.
Their carefull reading pointed tiny points (such as the use of abreviation) that still need improvements.
Their reviews help the manuscript revision.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
It was clear that the editor did not read the reviews thoroughly. The reviews actually contained comments that were totally wrong. The editor did not even notice did, even though the subject of the paper (and thus the reviews) were very much situated in her research field.