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
4.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
8.3 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
3.0 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
4.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 20.4 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The reviewer’s comments are not few and are fairly detailed. From a technical standpoint, responding to or revising the manuscript is not very difficult. However, not all of the reviewer’s suggestions are entirely appropriate, and the author should maintain firm judgment regarding their own work, while also responding to the reviewers' questions with patience. Reviewer 2 provided a particularly thoughtful suggestion: to minimize the use of an uncommon abbreviation to refer to the study population to ensure that they feel respected and acknowledged. This comment was heartwarming. Nevertheless, the review process was quite long, and I was really anxious at that time.