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

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 6.5 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
I have published several papers in this Journal. So far the reviewing process was very good, the assigned editor was responsive, tried to evaluate the manuscript and the reviews and provided suggestions to improve the quality of the submitted papers and, in this way, of the Journal. This time, we received reports from 2 people that apparently did not take to the time to even scan the manuscript. One of them provided a self-conflicting and irrelevant report. He started with suggestions for minor things to change and in the end he recommended rejecting the paper. The other reviewer presented papers (perhaps his own) that were clearly unrelated to the topic we examined. The worst thing is that the assigned editor (unknown to us) did not bother to even scan the paper or the reviews, hence he ordered the Journal editorial office to rejected it without even bothering to write an explanatory letter.