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
3.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.3 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.0 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
3.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Although I do not know when the editorial board submitted requests to the reviewers, the reviews were not reflecting 3-month-period of the thorough review. - The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work. - The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references) - The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced. I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal. I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic. The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude. Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.