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
15.5 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
35.9 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
3.5 / 5.0 (difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.3 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
0.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 69.6 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Drawn back.

Motivation:
Our manuscript went through two rounds of peer review. After the second round, both anonymous reviewers suggested accepting the paper for publication. The editor, however, requested us to revise and resubmit for a 3rd round of peer review. We followed the instructions and resubmitted the paper after addressing his comments. After that, the editor went radio silent. He didn't bother to send the revised manuscript to external reviewers or respond to any of our emails. He did not even make an editorial decision. After months of waiting and not receiving a response, we ended up withdrawing the paper. Completely waste of time for the authors and reviewers. This is the most unprofessional and unethical behavior I've seen from any editorial team.