Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Latest review

First review round: 3.3 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Our study received one positive and one negative review. The negative review with the suggestion of rejection was (1) extremely short and (2) not supported by any references. One part of the reasons for rejection was extremely general and could be applied to almost any study in our field. Another part contained a few statements nearly opposite to how the methodology and results of the study were described. In brief, all these statements were either not relevant to the study (we showed that it was not the case) or not supported by any reference, law, or observations (no one knows if they are true or not). While statements without any support are just not constructive or scientific, direct misinformation about the study's limitations suggests a poor or motivated revision. After a resubmission in which all the listed potential limitations were discussed, the same reviewer just repeated nearly the same text, not providing a single reference to support his or her claims. Such revisions may break the concept of goodwill, as both our study and some other studies were described by a reviewer with a clear sign of misinformation (even after resubmission). Moreover, when an editor cannot distinguish between constructive and non-constructive revisions because of a different background or field of study, such a process becomes very vulnerable to motivated revisions.
Very good process
Space for journal cover image