Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Foods has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a
Disciplines: General, Agriculture

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 0.5 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 1.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 3.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 3.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 1.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 2.0 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The paper was accepted but the experience was not great. The paper went through 3 rounds of revision in total. After the first round of revision, two out of three reviewers reccomended acceptance, whereas a single unsympathethic reviewer was still not satisfied about the extend of the revision (which is fair enough of course). In such situations one would normally expect editor to either go with the majority and accept the paper, or enlist an additional reviewer, but in any case give the authors the opportunity to further amend the paper. Instead they rejected it stating we didn't adddress this reviewer's comments (which wasn't true but no specific comments on this were provided, even after inquiry) but, at the same time, invited us to address them and resubmit it as a new paper. The only sensible explanation I could think of is they bring down submission-to-publication times (which of course will be nominally shorter if one considers every revision round as a new paper) by doing that. So that was pretty awkward, but we eventually did what they asked and resubmit as a new paper to avoid having to start from scratch with a different journal. The "new" paper was eventually accepted after one more round of revisions. The really annoying part of the whole process was that all communication went through an obviously clueless editorial assistant who seemed only focused on getting us to resubmit as fast as possible, rather than allowing us proper time to address the reviewer's comments. All resubmission deadlines they gave were extremely short (1 or 2 weeks), which was not consistent with the amount of revision requested by the reviewers. We generally respected the deadlines, but nonetheless they kept spamming us every 2-3 days, also during weekends, asking about the status of our paper (all authors mind you, not just the corresponding one) and reminding us to resubmit the paper as fast as possible. All in all a bad experience, I won't submit there again.