Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Neuropsychologia has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 11 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.5 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.5 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 7 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.9 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.4 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.1 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 26.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
It was terrible. First it was sent off to two reviewers and both had a few comments on it. We addressed them and resubmitted the paper. However, since the beginning it was clear that the section Editor did not read the paper at all. Then after we resubmitted it, we received the comments from three reviewers. The editor felt like asking one more reviewer. One reviewer from the first submission was happy with the revision and had no further comments. The additional reviewer had no comments at all (this tells you the poor selection of the reviewers) and the other reviewer from the first submission strangely enough this time had more comments and was not happy at all with the revision despite we replied to all their minor comments. Not only that but they also wrote a nasty comment to offend us and the Editor did not do anything about it. In the end the Editor rejected our paper without even reading it! What a poor Editorial work. I would certainly never submit any other paper to this journal.