Communications in Computational Physics

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Communications in Computational Physics has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 0.7 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 1.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 3.1 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

The handling of the manuscript was, at first, very satisfactory. We received a high quality report from the reviewer and the overall time spent in stage of reviewing and revising the manuscript was comparably short. However, after being notified about the acceptance of the manuscript in September, finalizing the paper in the production stage took relatively long. Three weeks until the source files had been approved, four weeks until the first proof was sent, nine weeks until the second round of proofs was sent and another three weeks until a corrected version was finally sent into production. All in all, this adds up to almost five months after the manuscript has been accepted. In total, we expect a delay of six months until the article will finally be published. During this time of putting the manuscript into production the communication with the editorial office has been scarce and direct replies to our queries have not been received. These circumstances unfortunately impair the otherwise very positive experience with the journal.