Structural Control and Health Monitoring

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Structural Control and Health Monitoring has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 3.7 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 6.1 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.5 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 15.0 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The Journal reject my work after 4 months, while 1 reviewer suggest it to be published, and the other one only suggest reject with one sentence that the work does not related to the journal. I do not know, whether really it needs 4 month for the reviewr to understand that the paper does not match with the journal? I'll share the reviewer comments here to see how much the performance of SCHM journal is terible in reviewing the articles: "Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author No Recommendation is made for this paper. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author In this paper, a new method is proposed to evaluate the lifetime seismic risk of typical buildings equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershocks sequences. 5-, 10-, and 15-story intermediate steel moment-resisting frame building models, which are designed optimally with/without passive vibration control systems (hysteretic damping, linear viscous dampingh, and base isolation systems) are subjected to earthquake scenarios and responses of buildings and their cumulative losses are calculated considering various damage types such as structural, non-structural, and content-related. Finally, risk of different building alternatives are estimated by using the Monte-Carlo simulation method. It is shown that the application of each of the considered vibration control devices leads to reduction in lifetime losses and neglecting aftershocks' effects results in underestimation of the lifetime risk by about 27~57% below the expected value. This paper is well written and well organized. It evaluates the subject from a wide perspective. The figures look professional. The literature review is adequate. Reviewer 3 Comments to the author The submission is focused on Earthquake Engineering, rather than on the control aspects, where nothing innovative is presented. This is confirmed by the absence of this journal in the reference list."