Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
18.6 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
Good handling of the manuscript, but the reviews were not great. One was very short, the other somewhat off.
n/a
n/a
41 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
Motivation:
We got a brief explanation, but other journals are quicker for a desk reject...
n/a
n/a
44 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
The editor clearly read the article, but for a desk reject this was rather slow. The editor was encouraging and was suggesting an alternative journal.
17.7 weeks
48.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
I observed that the editor in chief is a very positive person but one of the reviewer seems to be totally unaware of the basic statistics theories. In such situation I think the editor shouldn't subject his/her decision to the decision of such ignorant reviewer.
20.4 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Thorough reviews by clearly knowledgeable reviewers, who rated our paper not extensive and detailed enough, which might be true for a journal of ths reputation
n/a
n/a
80 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
Beyond the extremely long time it took the editor to make a decision on the paper, neither the editor nor his staff answered two messages during this long process when I inquired about the status of the paper. The interface showed that paper was "awaiting editorial decision" for many weeks and then the status changed to "awaiting reviewers selection" and then about a week later the editor suddenly informed me that he decided not to sent it to review and apologized for the long delay because he was traveling. This shows utter disregard to authors' time and I do not recommend submitting papers to this journal, despite its impact factor.
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
20.7 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
Although the article was rejected, the experience was positive in that most of the reviewers (3 out of 4) took the article seriously and offered substantial constructive criticism and advice, which enabled us to improve the paper before submitting elsewhere.
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Reviewers provide rich and detailled comments at each round of revision. This really helps to improve the paper.
n/a
n/a
158 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
Very polite answer from the editor. Submission was handled relatively professionally, although the communication with the journal did not work always well (we received an acnkowledgement of receipt for our submission only 1.5 months after our submission and only after having sollicited for an answer).