|Journal title||Average duration||Review reports (1st review rnd.)|
|(click to go to journal page)||1st rev. rnd||Tot. handling||Im. rejection||Number||Quality||Overall rating||Outcome|
|Structural Safety||32.9 wks||33.0 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Structural Safety||23.7 wks||23.9 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Structural Safety||25.6 wks||37.7 wks||n/a||2||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The review reports were candid and constructive. The quality of the manuscript definitely improved from the initial submission. It is worth the wait!|
|Structural Safety||43.3 wks||n/a||n/a||1||0 (very bad)||0 (very bad)||Rejected|
|Motivation: After 10 months of review process they rejected the paper only with one reviewer comments and the reason was this :"conceptual novelty and thematic balance of the research published in the journal as well as the limitation in number of pages permitted yearly by the publisher"
They could reject within only a week by these reasons not 10 months.