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
7.9 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
8.8 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
1.0 / 5.0 (very easy)
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: 34.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
Although the eventual result was acceptance of my article, I feel the review process was unprofessional and unethical. After a very lengthy first-round review, after prodding the editorial contact, I eventually received a single review that was clearly AI-generated. (Not only did it feel AI-generated but an AI detector strongly confirmed my suspicions.) Although the points were quite sensible, I consider it unethical to give confidential manuscripts to generative AI, especially without declaring to the authors that this was done. This cannot genuinely be called "peer" review.