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
0.2 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
0.2 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
0.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 1.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
There were two reviewers, who gave their feedback. The first reviewer have just formulated few generic comments as "After reading multiple times also, I did not understand", "Problem motivation is missing" - Where as all these points where highlighted in separate sections. So, the clear understanding is, the submitted works are been reviewed by some reviewers, who do not have the right mindset to read through the complete paper. The highlight of the review process is the second reviewer mentioned "I completely agree with the first reviewer" - This is my first time seeing a review comment like this and I guess for everyone reading this will have the same reaction.