Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
1.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
1.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
3.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 7.6 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The review process was speedy and largely professional. I did not get the impression however that the editor gave due consideration to the issues raised by the reviewers. As all reports specifically noted the interest of the topic and largely raised issues with manuscript structure not the underlying science it seemed a revise and resubmit decision would have been more logical. In short I was left with the impression from the decision and the comments that the editor hadn't really considered the reviews in depth.