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
5.5 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
5.5 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
3.5 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
4.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 26.0 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The editor based their decision (almost) exclusively on the negative report of one reviewer, ignoring the positive reports of two other reviewers. The decision letter almost only emphasizes the negative aspects contained in the referee reports, to the point of giving a biased interpretation of what is stated in the (positive) reports. For completeness, the manuscript was sent to a fourth reviewer who advocated for an immediate rejection due to plagiarism, since a previous version of the manuscript was available as a working paper (of course, my co-author and I had written the working paper version as well). The editor stated they did not consider this report to make the final decision, which probably contributed to the rather long review process since they had to find additional reviewers.