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.

Latest review

First review round: 30.4 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The reviewing process was absurdly long, with 7 MONTHS from the submission to the first decision of revision and another 9 MONTHS waiting for the second report after my revision submission, and then the draft was rejected with no reason given by the editor. I do not know what to comment on this extremely long process (during which I could not submit my draft elsewhere and I am a graduate student with only 5 year period of my program!) and how disappointed I was. The editor was very irresponsible and unprofessional. I understand the acceptance rate is low, so I am not angry about the final denial. But they should at least reject it within a reasonable duration. If they could not do their job (I heard that the editor became a dean of her department recently), they should let the author know, so that we can consider submitting our paper to other journals. I don't know if this is normal for this journal or just for the last 2 years (due to transition of publisher), but I feel it does not deserve its reputation now. I rated 1 star for the quality of two of the referee report, otherwise a 17 months rejection with only two rounds of revision should be rated zero.
3.8
Very good process
Space for journal cover image

Disciplines