Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Cities has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 6 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 5.1 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 9.5 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 22 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 1.3 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.8 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.5 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 27.1 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The process was too slow with some issues. First, I submitted a paper according to the guide for authors, and it was returned to me because of a detail that was in line with the journal’s guide for authors. I was told to do something else, which conflicts with the guide for authors of the very same journal, bizarre. After pointing out that issue, I was ignored. So I had no choice but to resubmit the paper conflicting with their rules. Then, the paper was listed “With Editor” for about a month before being sent out for review. After a few months, the paper was still under review. So I emailed them, and I was told that an insufficient number of reviewers accepted the editor’s invitation, and they will invite additional reviewers. It turns out that my submission remained in limbo, so I had to remind them to do that, and if I didn’t write an email to them, who knows for how long my submission would have been unnoticed. 4-5 months after the submission, I sent another email to ask about the status. Same issue: the paper does not have enough reviewers, so they will invite additional ones. Again, I had to push them to do their job. After offering suggestions for additional reviewers, I got a curt response from the journal manager that’s not required. More than a month later, the paper was still under review. Finally, two reviews arrived. One review was excellent, with very valid points, which are much appreciated. The other one was bogus, very generic, and with weird comments. The only reason why I gave a rating of 2 instead of 1 is because of the quality of one review report and the prompt responses by the editor.