Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
1100 articles
Manuscripts received last year
6000 manuscripts
Open access status
optional
Manuscript handling fee
none

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
6.00
Five-year impact factor
5.40

Aims and Scope

Nonlinear Dynamics provides a forum for the rapid publication of original research in the field of nonlinear dynamics.
The scope of the journal encompasses all nonlinear dynamic phenomena associated with mechanical, structural, civil, aeronautical, ocean, electrical and control engineering systems. Research is welcome from new emerging fields such as network dynamics, biosystem dynamics, ecosystem or social dynamics. Review articles and original contributions based on analytical, computational, and experimental methods are solicited, dealing with such topics as

Computational techniques, perturbation methods, local/global methods, efficient algorithms, parallel processing, computational intelligence
Nonlinear resonances, modal interactions, stochastic resonance, coherence resonance

Latest review

First review round: 11.3 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
Length of the review process: The editorial assignment and invitation of reviewers were completed very quickly, within a matter of days. The first round of the peer review took around 2 months, but it is acceptable as it was held during the summer (holidays, etc.). In the second round, the reviews were received in 1 month, which can again be considered very fast compared to some other high-level journals. The editorial decision took 2 weeks. The overall length of the process was above average according to the journal statistics. However, one should not rely on these statistics too much. Our paper is rather long (35 pages); thus, a longer review process could be expected. Quality of the reviews: Both reviews were professional and provided valuable feedback that improved the quality of the paper. The first reviewer even attached a PDF file with highlights and comments, making the revision process very smooth.
4.4
Very good process