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

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.3 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.7 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 4.3 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Although we got a "conditional accept" and the reviewers argued that we followed all suggestions of round 1 in a satisfying way, the editor decided to reject the paper. He argued with the journal's backlog. Further, reviewer 2 had some new comments which she has not mentioned in her first review (and which did not raise because of our revision). The editor argued that manuscripts are rejected, if there are issues remaining after the first revision. This was the worst experience I've ever had with a review process.