Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.4 weeks
31.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Mixed feelings about the process. Most of the review reports were thorough and have certainly helped us to improve the paper. They were critical and at the same time quite positive and down-to-earth, which leaves little to be desired. On the other hand, there was one persistent reviewer whose comments were not appropriate, and the editor did not recognise this and stepped in, as we think he should have. Further, another con is the lack of communication with the editor (no reply on two emails after enquiries about reason behind the long delay).