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
3.8 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.8 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 16.3 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The first reviewer report was very constructive and positive, more of a minor revision than a major revision. The second report was arguably the worst I've ever read. I genuinely felt insulted that they sent it to me. This second reviewer recommended rejection, and the editor rejected the manuscript based on this very questionable piece of text. I see that the editor wasn't a fan of the text; otherwise it would have gone to a third reviewer. In this case, I would much rather have a desk rejection to avoid wasting four months. The journal may be more critical compared to other terrorism journals, but I suggest not sending your work if it is truly outside the box.