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
2.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
2.2 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
2.0 / 5.0 (easy)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Neither the editor-in-chief nor the associate editor provided any reason why the manuscript was rejected in the letter of rejection. My co-authors and I were told to refer to referee comments (i.e. work it out yourself). Neither referee stated that the manuscript should be rejected (which in my view would have been inappropriate in any case). My co-authors and I felt that we could have easily addressed all comments provided by the referee (many of them being editorial). Therefore after waiting for over 3 months for a response, we were very disappointed to have the work rejected without editorial input.