Latest review
First review round: 62.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The editorial process at this journal was significantly flawed and professionally damaging. It took the journal exactly 632 days to reach a final rejection decision. For an early-career researcher, a wait of nearly 1.75 years for a single outcome is unacceptable and demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the researcher's career and the temporal relevance of the data.
This extreme delay created a critical issue with the study's validity; a prediction model utilizing 2023 as a reference point is rendered obsolete when the review process extends into 2026. Despite this nearly two-year wait, the manuscript was ultimately rejected for "methodological concerns" that should have been addressed in the first month, not the 90.5th week. Furthermore, the massive drop in the journal's publication volume (from 17,000 papers in 2024 to a drastic reduction currently) suggests a journal in crisis. I strongly advise colleagues to avoid this journal to save their time and their careers.
