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
3.2 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
4.2 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
3.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
5.0 / 5.0 (very difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
4.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.9 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The overall process was really fine. The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit. We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor. The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.