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
0.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
0.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
1.0 / 5.0 (very easy)
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
2.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 2.9 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The review process was very rapid. Three positive reviews were obtained quickly. The reviews were very brief and limited in content but indicated an understanding of the paper and the suggestions were reasonable. It appears that the review process is handled by the managing editor and not the journal editor (for this special issue). I got the impression from aspects of the process that the journal managing editor pushes articles through, independent of reviewer comments. For example, they offered to put my article on a list of articles for the special issue, prior to the peer review occurring, which seemed quite suspicious. Thus, I am a bit suspicious of the integrity of the peer review process of this journal and would not submit there again.