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
6.3 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
9.0 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
4.5 / 5.0 (very difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.3 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.8 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.8 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 65.1 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Biased judgement on our adoption of theoretical lens and methodology. Other parts of the comments just consist of very generic challenges on research motivation (which we have justified the motivation quite well already). No recommendations were made for improving the manuscript. And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.