Thermochimica Acta

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Thermochimica Acta has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 6 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.5 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.5 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 1 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.8 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.3 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 1.7 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.5 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 11.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

The first rejection was based on only a single reviewer, who appeared to have not even read the manuscript thoroughly. He/she repeatedly crticised an experimental method that was not even used in this work. He/she was also majorly criticizing the exact approach of the uncertainty reporting (like, that it should be specified to be standard or expanded uncertainty, and that e.g. for a table where and how it should be etc.). These aspects are however more template-based aspects, and thus shoudl not be basis for rejecting an article carrying a content of scientific value. When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection. Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision. Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.