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
2.8 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
4.1 months
Decision time immediate rejection
14 days
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
2.6 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
2.6 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.1 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.4 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 17.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
I have published previously in Applied Energy, but something has changed. For this paper the first reviewer gave very good comments and advised for acceptance with no modifications. Second reviewer however had very poor English and suggested outright reject based only on low resolution figures. I supplied vector graphics figures as separate files, but reviewer did not check these. I do not think the reviewer even read the paper as there was no other justification for the reject. And as the level of English was so poor, I do not think the reviewer could have even understood the text. The editor did not supply any context for the rejection, and I think the editor did not even check the review comments.