Journal of Nonlinear Science

Journal info (provided by editor)

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

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

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 4.6 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 1.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments n/a compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 20.1 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Rejected.

I received two reports: one very positive, constructive and to the point. The other, very negative, agressive and offensive, and with vague words about the paper itself. After the decision was communicated, I wrote to the editor-in-chief, saying that the negative report was extremely rude and not technica. He then asked me to write a rebuttal letter and he would then send my letter and the manuscript to an adjuticator. This third reviewer made a positive report of our results, but recommended rejection saying that the problem which we were considering was more theoretical and not necessarily related to nonlinear problems coming from real problems. Although I read in this journal papers not necessarily coming from real problems, I can accept this argument. Overall, my opinion about the whole process was positive.