Reviews for "Thermochimica Acta"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Thermochimica Acta 11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The first rejection was based on only a single reviewer, who appeared to have not even read the manuscript thoroughly. He/she repeatedly crticised an experimental method that was not even used in this work. He/she was also majorly criticizing the exact approach of the uncertainty reporting (like, that it should be specified to be standard or expanded uncertainty, and that e.g. for a table where and how it should be etc.). These aspects are however more template-based aspects, and thus shoudl not be basis for rejecting an article carrying a content of scientific value.
When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection.
Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision.
Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.
Thermochimica Acta n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Thermochimica Acta n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Thermochimica Acta 2.0
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Thermochimica Acta 8.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Thermochimica Acta 4.3
weeks
5.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted