Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.9 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The editor (Dr. Parker) was very constructive in his remarks and granted us more time to do the necessary experimental procedures that were needed for the revision. Review process was within the time allocated and reviewers comments were constructive.
6.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
In overall the time-lapse between submission and final acceptance was fair. Reviewers were professional on their answers and looked scientifically aware of the possible caveats of our work.
4.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2012