Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The editor did not chose two of the three reviewers well: from the comments, one of them likely was a reviewer that I had asked to be excluded due to conflict of interest, and the second did not know even the basics of the field of research.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
Pros: fast first editorial decision. Cons: the editors were not able to perceive the importance of the work
5.7 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The editor was quick to judge, read and evaluate the content, and the paper was made better by the referee and editor's suggestions.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The ms was immediately rejected however I was really impressed that it took the editors only one day and the reasons for rejection were explained. Definitely, the editor had read the paper.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Fast process, and reasons for rejection were explained. It was evident that the editor had read the paper.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Poor initial assessment. The argumentation for rejection was scientifically incorrect (claiming that the structures we report are known, which is not true).
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Fast and efficient process. A few lines from the Editor showing that the paper was at least quickly read.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Very fast process. The justification that no new molecular process was identified, seems acceptable, for publication in this journal.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013