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
6.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
11.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.3 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
5.0 / 5.0 (very difficult)
Average number of review reports
1.7 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.3 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 36.4 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The whole process took exceedingly long (nearly 9 months in the first round and > 6 months to process the revision) and in the meantime it was near impossible to get updates about what was happening behind the scenes. For the initial review an editor was found but they withdrew at some point, but we were never made aware of this happening. Most of my requests to the administration/editor in chief/handling editor went unanswered. Few months after the revision was submitted the handling editor (wrongly) seemed to be under the impression that we had not written a response letter to the reviewers, which I found very concerning. The final rejection was based on an entirely new reviewer (only one..). Overall the worst experience I have ever had at a journal due to 1) extreme slowness 2) no communication whatsoever and 3) final rejection seemed very much at odds with the opinion the editor had after the first round of reviews. Would not recommend anyone to submit to this journal.