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
3.0 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.0 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
0.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 13.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The reviewer did not make any attempt to review the scientific argument in the paper but simply went on to find fault with the terminology used and express his/her opinion about how it was not possible to understand the paper. The review was simply about authors being unclear about the underlying models, being confused about key statistical concepts followed by a tutorial on the reviewers thoughts about the terminology used in statistics. There was no attempt made to objectively assess the proposal in the paper or to demonstrate if it works or not. There was no consideration at all of our methods or any specific pointer to the validity of our findings - two pages filled with non-specific opinions that could very well address any paper at Statistics in Medicine. The editors simply served as gate keepers for the reviewers. I would avoid this journal if you are presenting new methods and are not a famous personality.