Journal info (provided by editor)

Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
Immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Two-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
5.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
5.3 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.7 / 5.0

Characteristics of peer review process

Average number of review rounds
1.2 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.0 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
3.0 reports
Quality of review reports
1.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 15.0 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Personally, the prestige the journal holds is not reflected in their review process. Expect 1-2 reviewers; the comments were too general. Even a reviewer copy-pasted their comment two times just to increase the feedback, and the editor forwarded the comments as is without even checking the duplicates. For example, a reviewer's comments were like the following: Data Selection Bias (Major Issue): Adoption behavior is unexplained; the model only uses repository-level metrics. This is not the way to justify the rejection. I personally suggest not wasting time to submit to this journal. I agree that rejection is natural in academic publishing, but without justification, rejecting someone's idea is not what EAAI is known for.