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: 13.0 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
There were two initial reports on the paper. The first was positive, it contained important criticism and asked for a major revision. The second was negative, it misused anonymous peer review system to promote opinion which does not stand open discussion (see the last section of https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05141). In my reply to the Editors I justified the above by considering the referee's comments one by one. The Editors suggested a major revision (even before receiving my criticism of the report). I do not know whether the Editors sent my criticism to the second referee or not. I received no reply to my criticism from the second referee. Since the unfair report did not play a decisive role for the Editors' decision, there is no need to justify my point of view by publishing my reply to the report. Overall, critical attention of Editors to referee reports and recommendations (and to authors' replies) ensures high level of peer review.
5.0
Excellent process
Space for journal cover image

Disciplines