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.

Latest review

First review round: 10.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were constructive, and the manuscript improved. Compared to articles from a few years ago, the peer review seems to have become stricter in recent years. However, the formatting editor, whose only role was to check for typos and the like, was absolutely terrible. Not only did she overlook many errors, but she also commented on the content of the paper despite having no scientific understanding of mitochondrial DNA, and many of her comments were completely off the mark. Because she was the first in the review process, we couldn't even raise objections to the reviewers or editors, and had to make revisions based on her unfounded demands. Naturally, these revisions were pointed out as being incorrect during the review and had to be reverted. Upon submitting the revised manuscript, she made the exact same requests again. Even after sending a protest email, she completely ignored it, causing significant delays in the review process. This time, we spent more time dealing with her baseless remarks than on the actual review. Ultimately, things moved smoothly after explaining the situation to the chief editor. It's completely unacceptable for a formatting editor to override comments from reviewers or academic editors. Furthermore, the lack of information sharing between formatting editors, academic editors, and reviewers is also problematic.
0.0
Very bad process
Space for journal cover image