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
1.4 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
1.4 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
0.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 6.3 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The editor claimed that he rejected the manuscript taking account of the reviewers' views. However, the reviewers' reports were very short and gave no substantial reasons why it had to be rejected. So the decision came as a surprise since the editor, in his rejection letter, attached his chapter in press suggesting I read it and understand the objective of this journal. This comment alluded that my manuscript, from the very beginning, did not fall within the scope of the journal. Then the editor should have rejected and returned the manuscript at the outset. It was just waste of time.