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
2.4 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
7.8 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
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 10.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
At first, the manuscript received two positive reviewer reports asking for revision. In the second round, one reviewer suggested minor revisions while the other said that even though the paper was strengthened it still needed more work. In the third report, a new reviewer was introduced whose report was also in a positive tone asking for revisions. The fourth time, I have only received one reviewer report from a new reviewer who briefly stated that the manuscript was not adequate for the journal (stating that the sampling was too limited and arguing that the manuscript was not a good fit for the journal). Complete waste of my time and the time of previous reviewers since all of their reports were positive. The new reviewer (Reviewer 5 as it has been named by the journal) was also pretty rude and the report was not constructive at all, lacking any kind of suggestions. I have lost 9 months with this journal and it was the worst experience I ever had with a journal. I strongly recommend everyone to stay away.