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
6.3 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
7.2 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
0.0 / 5.0 (effortless)
Average number of review reports
1.0 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: 27.6 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The journal now uses the Elsevier "Track Submission System" which is quite nice. According to the statuses shown, two potential reviewers declined to referee, while the third one accepted and carried out their duty in roughly three months. The report was spot on, and it felt that they went through the manuscript with care. My only complaint is that it appears that the first reviewer was invited two months after the initial submission, and my revised version a month after being sent in. Both times, things started to move when I sent an email inquiring whether the process was moving along. On the one hand, the help desk was fast in reaching the handling editor and having things moving, but on the other hand a quicker handling editor would have meant a total handling time two to three months less.