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
5.6 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
8.0 months
Decision time immediate rejection
10 days
Average number of review rounds
1.9 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.9 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.3 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.4 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.8 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 39.1 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
This journal has one of the most disgusting review processes I have found in my experience. Not all the reviews are shared with the authors (only some of them are shared). Even after emailing multiple times regarding sensitive issues, there was no response from the editorial committee. The decision process takes way too long, with questionable remarks. Why is a decision being taken based on the comments of 1 reviewer, not all 4 (even after receiving the reviews). In my case, one of the reviewers clearly broke the ethical boundary when he asked to cite his own papers. When refused, he outright rejected the paper without any proper justification. When I informed the editor regarding this multiple times, there was no response. but they rejected the paper solely based on this particular reviewer. After almost a year of review, the authors atleast have the rights to see all the reviews and a transparent decision process. I am completely disgusted by this journal and I am never going to submit my paper ever again here - suggest others not to submit as well.