Journal of Biomechanics

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Journal of Biomechanics has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.6 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 4.6 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 5.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 11.1 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Altogether, the handling of the manuscript has been rapid and efficient. One of the two reviewers screened the manuscript in very best practice, evaluated chapter by chapter even for complex mathematical content, gave inspired positive feedback and provided helpful comments with regard to the existing content. The second reviewer obviously did not deal with the scientific methods and results of the manuscript in detail (if at all). Finding his own opinion contradicted in the results and discussion chapter, this reviewer requested explanation for questions which were out-of-scope of the manuscript. After three months of additional intensive research we provided detailed explanations in a substantially enlarged revision. The editorial board rejected our revised submission, arguing that one referee had recommended against publication. The first referee did not have any further objections. The reasons given by the second referee were demonstrably counterfactual and completely unrelated to the explanations and changes requested in the first review. It is questionable whether the editors had carefully judged the referees' work, as they had weighted the superficial review higher than the accurate one.