Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled professionally and the process was smooth. I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers; I sensed that they were highly competent reviewers. One of the reviewers gave very comprehensive feedback and great ideas for a follow-up paper. I would consider submitting a paper to this journal again.
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response.
11.9 weeks
25.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Some reviewers made pertinent and helpful comments, but others did not and made comments which suggested they failed to understand the message of the paper. A better choice of reviewers would have helped. However, the editor proved to be very competent in dealing with the reviews and the changes made to the manuscript.
17.7 weeks
25.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
Well chosen reviewers, good feedback overall, and very comptently conducted editorial process
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
28.9 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).