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
3.4 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
5.0 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 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
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 10.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
We received three reports from three reviewers. Two of them were knowledgeable commenting on the topic and asked for minor changes that all were addressed in the 1st round review. The 3rd reviewer described him/her self as "informed about the topic but never publish in the topic". The 3rd reviewer was dismissive of everything. His main comment was approved mathematically wrong. We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments. We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision. Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final