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.

Latest review

First review round: 1.3 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
We received three reviews on the paper. Two were very constructive, offering helpful insights, while the third came from a reviewer who mainly picked up on a few keywords and concluded that the topic was uninteresting and lacking in novelty. This third reviewer provided no constructive feedback, offering only a few sentences. After revision, the paper was sent back to this reviewer, likely because the other two recommended only minor revisions. However, this reviewer again suggested rejection, stating that their initial "points" had not been addressed, though the reviewers feedback consisted of critical remarks rather than specific points. We did provide a point-by-point response to their brief comments. Following this round, the manuscript was reviewed by the editorial board, which took about two weeks to reach an acceptance decision.