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
3.6 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
4.4 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.7 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.5 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.3 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.7 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 16.6 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
I am not convinced that the reviewers were familiar with the topic or the journal's requirements on manuscripts. One reviewer criticised that our abstract was "too long, overly detailed". But the word count (218) is below the journal's limit for abstracts (250). Another reviewer criticised us for citing references that are written in Chinese, suggesting that such references "may not be accessible or appropriate for an English-language journal". Note that there is no explicit prohibition on citing non-English sources in submission guidlines. Also the references do have enough English metadata that an English reader can understand what we cited (translated title + English abstract), even if they can’t read the page fluently. Critically, we do not understand why it is an issue that we cite Chinese sources in an English-language journal, especially one whose core mission is China-focused.