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
n/a
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
n/a
Decision time immediate rejection
44 days
Average number of review rounds
n/a
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
n/a

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
n/a
Overall rating manuscript handling
n/a

Latest review

Outcome: Rejected (im.).

Motivation:
First, we waited for 6 weeks before being informed that the manuscript was going to be sent to reviewers. After all, the manuscript was not reviewed by external reviewers and decision was made by one of the editors in chief. The reviewer's comments were not very relevant to the topic of the manuscript. There was no discussion on the technical part or scientific gaps in the paper. We had a high expectation from this journal but the review process is very poor. We believe the review process is not very professional. The article was rejected with not proper consideration and based on a single opinion without processing to the associate editor and reviewers despite we have received a compliment that the manuscript is interesting within the same paragraph.