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
2.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
2.0 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
3.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
0.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 8.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The reviewers appeared to be in a hurry, looking for any excuse to reject. The reasons they gave were imaginary, things that existed only in the reveiwer's minds. The words they used did not match the contents of the paper. This is irresponsible behavior. The publishing of papers is the primary criteria for being hired into research positions. These reviewers have tremendous power over the lives of authors. There needs to be a feedback mechanism in place that corrects their behavior when they act irresponsibly like this.