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
3.9 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
4.9 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.5 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
2.0 / 5.0 (easy)
Average number of review reports
1.5 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.5 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
1.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 20.6 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
I have published over a dozen peer-reviewed papers in top journals from several disciplines, and I have never encountered such a disorganized review process. The main culprit is the Editor, who let our paper sit without reviewers for four months despite my reminders. In the end, he did invite reviewers, but only one reviewer accepted the invitation to review. Then, I sent him a list of ten suggested reviewers. Instead of inviting them, the Editor just rejected the manuscript on the sole basis of one, largely incompetent review. What a mess, and a huge waste of time. I suggest staying far away from this journal as long as the current editorial team stays in place.