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
3.1 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.1 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
3.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.4 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The manuscript was initially rejected because I suggested the "wrong" editor, so I resubmitted the manuscript immediately. Because of this, time was added to the review process. I also question the qualifications of the reviewers. The issues that they raised were not major and could have been resolved with some simple feedback to the reviewers or the addition of a sentence or two in the manuscript. Clearly they were unfamiliar with the type of data I used. Overall, I found the handling of the manuscript unprofessional and I would not recommend this journal.