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.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
2.5 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
2.5 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
1.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 10.7 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Comments from 1st reviewer: 1. Presented development is explained clearly: Yes 2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) Yes 3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications Yes 4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes 5. Readability and English grammar are all right Yes Other comments: It will be useful to have some simulated 3D radiation patterns so readers can find out which modes the antenna are operating at. Comments from 2nd reviewer: 1. Presented development is explained clearly No 2. Credibility of published results is proven (experiment, simulation, etc.) No 3. Presented development is put in context referring relevant publications No 4. Abstract of the paper is appropriate and adequate Yes 5. Readability and English grammar are all right No Other comments: Readability and English needs to be checked before submission. Although the work is quite interesting; the paper is bad written. The contribution of the paper in the antennas design aspect is not in a satisfactory level.