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
0.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
0.5 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.0 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
1.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 0.1 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The EIC is helpful, although his practice may not be generally adopted. A few days after my initial submission, he wrote a fairly long paragraph of constructive feedback asking for my revision but he has made it "rejected" on record. I still submit it again given he explicitly asked me to do so. I addressed the comments accordingly (after a few months as I was working on other papers and there is no given deadline for such "revision"), and then it went through a more usual practice. Both reviewers were very positive. Only minor edits were needed, and my article was accepted very quickly after the 2nd round revision.