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
1.6 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
1.6 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
2.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
3.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 6.8 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Handling was ok. Both reviews were short, one 331 words, the other just one sloppy sentence, even without caring for correct grammar. While the first addressed some minor and one major point and not conluding a decision, the second was an advice against publication but with a ridiculously superficial discussion. The editor did not explain the decision. I would wish that such reviews as #2 are rejected by editors, however the editorial process was okay.