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
5.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
11.0 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 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
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 21.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
I spent 5 months waiting for a revise and resubmit from 2 reviewers and 1 OK. I then addressed the reviewers comments in good faith for 6 months. I then waited 6 months for 2 reviewers to reject and 1 to say Ok (again). I am fine with reviewers opinions - even from those who are initially encouraging and then sharply critical, even if the latter is disagreeable. However it should be the editor's job to explain and moderate in this situation - not to simply copy paste a reviewer's comment by way of explanation. Overall: a huge waste of time. Thank goodness there are just as good journals out there, who may know how to run things properly.