Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
15% accepted
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
optional
Manuscript handling fee
none

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
1.8 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
2.0 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
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 6.0 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
Review process was painless really. Reviews were useful; they had opposite views which really helped develop some of the work. Timings above are to the best of memory. The only real issue, small but annoying, was the journal website said APA referencing style 3, on submission the editor initially instantly rejected it as he said APA 5, but the reviewers were on APA 6 (or other). This took a while to fix, but was just tedious. It would be great if Journals would create an Endnote/other style for download, it might seem lazy, but it would save everyone time and allow focus on the actual detail of the work. It would also allow for changes in referencing styles to easily fixed/updated.