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
3.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.9 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 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
1.0 reports
Quality of review reports
4.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
In the first round of review, the referee provided a constructive report indicating that the results are novel and interesting, comments to improve the paper were provided and most of them addressed, a point-by-point response was provided. After the revision and resubmission the associate editor decided to send the paper to another reviewer who only provided a "quick opinion" (no report at all). Most of the "heckler" comments were wrong or irrelevant to the novel part of the paper, so he suggested to reject the paper & the associate editor followed the new referee opinion to reject the paper. All what they did was wasting my time and the original reviewer time and efforts.