Journal info (provided by editor)

Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
Immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Two-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
4.8 months
Decision time immediate rejection
7 days
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.5 / 5.0

Characteristics of peer review process

Average number of review rounds
2.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.0 / 5.0 (moderate)
Average number of review reports
2.5 reports
Quality of review reports
3.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 10.7 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
t took somewhat longer than expected for the manuscript to enter the peer-review process. However, once the review process began, it proceeded quite smoothly. Although there were three rounds of revisions, the editor managed the process efficiently and kept it moving forward. Regarding the quality of the reviews (which were provided by three different reviewers), I believe that some of the comments and suggestions genuinely improved the quality of the manuscript. However, I also felt that one of the reviewers appeared to rely rather indiscriminately on AI tools. This made the revision process unnecessarily challenging for the authors, without leading to a substantial improvement in the manuscript. Many of the requested changes went beyond the realistic scope of the paper, and some criticisms were made from different theoretical paradigms without attempting to integrate them in a meaningful way.