Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.9 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Initial reviewers (2) could find novelty during first review and third reviewer not.... Surprising
11.1 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: I wish I wanted an opinion from more than one review. My general impression of this journal is that the editor(s) rely too much on reviewers' comments, not making their own decisions.
13.0 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
0
Rejected
2016
Motivation: In the first round of reviews, one reviewer recommend "accept". The other reviewer went beyond his/her duty, and raised excellent comments. We sincerely address these concerns, but the paper was sent to new reviewers who rejected the paper rather casually. The main reason, as far as I could see, was that the paper uses a framework that they did not like.
10.9 weeks
10.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The reviewers point out only minor problems and recommended rejection. The editor added no comments, saying that "since reviewer rejected the paper, I am going to follow that recommendation." The English by both the reviewers and the editor were very non-native.