Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: We waited nearly 3.5 weeks for a decision on our manuscript - which is the longest I've ever experienced. It's a shame as AEE is a fantastic journal but I'd never submit there again. Would particularly advise ECR to steer clear and instead go for a journal which has shorter, and more justifiable, waiting times.
28.6 weeks
38.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The first review round was quite long. After we sent the inquiry to the editorial team we quickly received a reply with explanation that they are still looking for the suitable reviewers. However, the reviews we recieved provided good guidence which really helped us to improve the manuscript. Each of the three reviewers covered different aspect of the paper which was very useful because the research was interdisciplinary.
n/a
n/a
23 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: A couple of sentences on reason for rejection were provided.
n/a
n/a
41 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: Waiting 41 days to hear that the manuscript did not even pass the first evaluation is shocking. I can accept that the editor feels the manuscript was out of the scope, but if that's the case, surely this can be detected in less than 41 days. This is an unacceptable waste of time for the authors and for the scientific community.
18.4 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: We were very reluctant sending our manuscript to this journal because we were not sure it fitted the scope. We first contacted the editor to check whether the manuscript fitted the scope and he honestly admitted that based on the title and the abstract it may not be a very good fit, but the decision to send it out for peer review ultimately depends on the field editor. We took the risk, submitted the article and 18 days after submission, we were happy to see that our manuscript was "under review." The review process took 4 months, which is fair for the complex manuscript we submitted. All three reviewers were positive and had very little comments. The editor accepted our manuscript pending minor revisions. Once we submitted the revised manuscript, it was accepted the next day. We are of course very happy that the manuscript was accepted without the need for lenghty revisions. However, it is difficult to judge the quality of the referee reports. All three reports were positive and very short. Maybe we submitted a very good manuscript? In any case, we learnt from this case that you should not be discouraged to submit to this journal, even if you are not entirely sure your manuscript fits into its scope. Overall, we are very happy.
25.9 weeks
25.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
1
Rejected
2016
Motivation: I recommend to avoid this journal. It took about a half year to go through the first round. I am glad that one reviewer's comments are helpful.
11.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: Extremely long review process with disappointing comments. The editor did not motivate his decision well.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Rejected
2014
Motivation: The suggestions of the reviewers where interesting and adequated, I fully agree with them.
They rejected it but they provided to me with a list of journals with same style requirements so my paper could be resubmitted after nochanges in style.
I considere the time delayed to answer too long, I do not recommend to submmit there if you have time constraints, like for presenting a PhD dissertation.