Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
8.6 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
Motivation: It was not clear whether the reviewers recommended rejection or major revisions. Both reviewers provided detailed assessment with the list of parts, which needed correction, which implied that major revisions was their preferred verdict. However, the Editor rejected the manuscript. The context implies that our methodology was the major issue, especially the absence of XRD and Raman spectral analysis.
3.6 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Good referees expertise and fast communication.
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
8.7 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
Motivation: Everything was promptly, professionally. The article appeared in Scopus quickly labeled as "in press". But the administration of my university did not register the article as published until the output of a hard copy. Thus, the publication process took about 10 months.
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
3.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewing process in TSF, as well as in other Elsevier journal, is organised fairly well, though sometimes it takes a rather long time.