Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: My article submission was rejected without any peer review feedback. I requested feedback and received no response.
Motivation: The Journal offered a speedy, yet rigorous, review procedure. The review wasn't all too brief: the reviewer went into some length with his most accurate summary of the overall argument of the article as well as the data presented therein. All the suggestions for improvement (all mostly minor) were useful and resulted in welcome improvements. There were also various suggestions for grammatical and stylistic improvement, which were useful as well