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
1.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
1.0 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
1.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
5.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 4.3 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Overly Punitive and Poorly Justified Review While the reviewer raises some valid concerns, their approach seems excessively punitive, dismissing the paper without providing clear directions for improvement. The critique of the fractal interpretation of the data could have been better substantiated, and the rejection of the methodology should have been accompanied by specific recommendations. If originality was the main objection, the reviewer could have suggested ways to make the study more relevant instead of outright rejecting it. As it stands, this review appears more like a subjective dismissal of the paper rather than a constructive evaluation that could lead to an improved version.