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

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.7 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.7 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 5.7 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The reviewer rejected my article with an argument I found intriguing: they acknowledged the topic's relevance due to an upcoming European space mission but deemed the manuscript unsuitable for peer review. This raises an important question—if the manuscript truly lacked the necessary quality, wouldn’t the editor, an experienced professional astronomer, have identified this at an earlier stage? The review focused primarily on the conclusions section and did not provide a comprehensive assessment. The concerns raised could have been addressed with constructive feedback. Based on my prior publications in journals with similar impact factors, I found this review process unusually slow and lacking in depth. However, after resubmitting the paper to another journal from the same publisher, it was accepted within two to three months, reinforcing the value of the work.