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
1.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
2.9 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.0 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.7 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.7 / 5.0

Latest review

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

Motivation:
After the first round of reviews (which we received end of February 2018), we addressed every point and updated the paper (March 2018). Reviews were helpful and made our paper better. However, after 2 months (end of May 2018), we were rejected. We didn't get any proper explanation neither from reviewers nor from the Editor of Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Specialty Chief Editor send 1 sentence from which was not clear whether or not he read our updated paper or reviews we got. He wrote that we were not willing to address changes (which was not true), but he also didn't write any points to support his statement. Rejections are a part of publishing a scientific paper, but in order to actually make them helpful for scientists, people who are making executive decisions should give actual arguments and explanations. In other words, they should be required to act scientific.