Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.2 weeks
24.2 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
0
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Our manuscript faced rejection after two rounds of review, despite receiving favorable recommendations from three out of four reviewers. Initially, one reviewer endorsed our work for publication, and after the first round of review, a second reviewer joined in their support. Following the second review round, a third reviewer not only recommended publication but also praised our efforts.

However, the fourth reviewer, who consistently recommended rejection throughout the process, exhibited self-contradiction in each round of review. This reviewer presented entirely unscientific arguments, such as personal experiences, which were not only weak but also incorrect. We addressed and refuted each of the reviewer's points using our data and supplementary scientific literature, yet the editor ultimately decided to reject our paper.

In my perspective, the review process was undemocratic, opaque, and unscientific. We sought clarification from the editor regarding the decision to reject our work despite the favorable recommendations of three out of four reviewers, but we received no response. Interestingly, the journal's editors have recently published articles similar to our own. While I hesitate to directly suggest a bias, it is challenging not to entertain such an assumption in the face of an evidently undemocratic and unscientific procedure.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Drawn back
2021
Motivation: A short turn-around time
7.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
42.1 weeks
45.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The reviews were very valuable and constructive, from someone who was very knowledgeable of the field. The reviews enhanced the quality of paper a lot.