Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
32.0 weeks
60.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The overall review process took almost 15 months!
The first round took nearly 8 months. Two reviewers were positive and they requested limited revisions (add some context information and add implications in the disucssion). I completed the requested revisions and resubmitted my article within the requested time frame.
After seven months I received two times in one week a 'reject' with no comments. It turned out this were technical mistakes so they would re-revise my manuscript again. Finally after almost eight months after resubmitting my revised manuscript I received comments from a third total new reviewer who was negative about the overall manuscript, in contradiction with the previous two reviewers in the first round. Based on this the editor rejected my manuscript.
Overall I respect the rejection, but the fact that this journal has had my manuscript with them for 15 months and rejected my paper after limited revisions were requested is very unfortunate and demotivating for a PhD researcher.
The first round took nearly 8 months. Two reviewers were positive and they requested limited revisions (add some context information and add implications in the disucssion). I completed the requested revisions and resubmitted my article within the requested time frame.
After seven months I received two times in one week a 'reject' with no comments. It turned out this were technical mistakes so they would re-revise my manuscript again. Finally after almost eight months after resubmitting my revised manuscript I received comments from a third total new reviewer who was negative about the overall manuscript, in contradiction with the previous two reviewers in the first round. Based on this the editor rejected my manuscript.
Overall I respect the rejection, but the fact that this journal has had my manuscript with them for 15 months and rejected my paper after limited revisions were requested is very unfortunate and demotivating for a PhD researcher.
12.3 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The reviewers gave me useful, constructive feedback that helped me improve the manuscript. I learned a lot from the reviewers' report.