Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
10.4 weeks
12.3 weeks
2 reports
Motivation: We proposed the manuscript to the journal (since it is normally by invitation only). Our proposal was swiftly accepted.

The review process was quick and reasonable. One reviewer seemed to have been selected from our list of proposals, another seemed totally unconnected. The quality of reviews was not outstanding, but decent.

The editors were friendly and encouraging, as well as competent in the field. The whole process was very speedy and we were satisfied with the result. Submission to final decision took about 3 months.
7.1 weeks
20.4 weeks
2 reports
Motivation: After the submission of the revised article, the editor informed that it was sent to the previous reviewers for review. However, both the reviewers declined to re-review the revised article. It was not even sent to new reviewers for review. The associate editor himself started to review the revised article. He took 3 long months to review and rejected the article without any solid reasons. We had addressed almost all the reviewer comments in the revised article.

According to my perception, the editors are very lazy/negligent in carrying out efficient and timely reviews and are reluctant to think about the efforts of authors who wait for about 7 months with an intention of getting acceptance.