Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of IET Communications has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 3.1 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 3.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 13.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Although I do not know when the editorial board submitted requests to the reviewers, the reviews were not reflecting 3-month-period of the thorough review. - The first reviewer wrote 6 lines and complained about the insufficiency of the work. - The second one wrote 9 lines and advised further references (although there were a limit for the number of references, 20-30, we had enough I believe, 20 references) - The third reviewer wrote 4 lines and advised 6 more papers to be referenced. I do not think the review process was serious for such a reputable journal. I am a grad student and the 3 months of waiting is critical for me as I am trying to finish my thesis and present the jury my accomplishments on the topic. The editorial board could give me chance to elaborate on the topic with some positive criticism instead of directly "throw-it-to-rubbish" attitude. Simply I can not accept this review process as an ethical and scientific activity.