Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2021
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation: suggested a different journal
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: The article was considered too narrow.
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2019
Motivation: Fast review process. The quality of the reviews was somewhat lower than expected, otherwise a positive overall experience.
7.0 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: The process was well explained and transparent. The editors and/or editorial assistants replied quickly and kind to all requests.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
0
Rejected
2017
Motivation: My paper was rejected after three R&R recommendations while a very poor paper that I reviewed for this journal was accepted without any of my major concerns addressed.

When I notified the editors about this strange decision, they never responded. They simply sent me an invite to review another paper for them...

As a reviewer, the process is very opaque as you cannot see what other reviewers have advised.
8.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Good review procedure, without delays. (also very fast publication after acceptance)
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The rejection in itself was not a problem as the paper indeed needed further improvement. Rather, the problem was that one of the reviews was particularly abrasive and offensive at a personal level (including a statement such as "To correct its [the paper's] flaws a sabbatical at a good library is required."). I was disappointed in the editors' decision not to dismiss such a review when making the decision. While the latter may have still been 'reject', abrasive reviews are not conducive to academic debates and editors should take particular care in accepting them.
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The first review round took a very long time!
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2013