Reviews for "Thin Solid Films"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome
Thin Solid Films	8.6 weeks	11.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Thin Solid Films	17.4 weeks	17.4 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Rejected
Thin Solid Films	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.
Thin Solid Films	3.6 weeks	6.1 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Thin Solid Films	Motivation: Good referees expertise and fast communication.
Thin Solid Films	11.7 weeks	11.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Thin Solid Films	6.3 weeks	6.3 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected
Thin Solid Films	8.7 weeks	13.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted
Thin Solid Films	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.
Thin Solid Films	21.7 weeks	21.7 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Thin Solid Films	3.0 weeks	4.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted
Thin Solid Films	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.