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
6.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
6.7 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
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 29.0 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Reviewer 1 was clearly into my field, and gave me a "Revise and Resubmit" with some precious suggestions. As for Reviewer 2 instead, who suggested "Reject", s/he seemed not to be really into my field (or s/he seemed to follow a, say, competing school within the same field). S/he suggested me to take into account theories which have little or nothing to do with the one I investigated in my paper, and made some assertions without justifying them. Also, her/his observations went not beyond page 7 (over 32), which suggests that s/he made very little effort to understand the content of the paper (s/he said that some definitions were unclear, but in reality they were formulated in a way which is standard in the field).