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
5.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
6.1 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
1.0 / 5.0 (very easy)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 40.3 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Took far too long to respond. This significantly wasted the authors' time in an arena where research is supposed to be cutting edge. I also thought the reviews were quite narrow-minded in not understanding the benefits of publishing research that was primarily developmental and involved pilot studies, and therefore had interesting developments but was not statistically perfect because of the difficulties involved.