Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
17.6 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2023
Motivation: The reviews were respectfully formulated and provided thoughtful feedback. Altough one point of one of the reviewers was practically infeaseable, the other points were managable critical comments and offered many important suggestions for improvement. The first revised manuscript we submitted exceeded the word limit (due to following extensive suggestions for improvment). The journal has thereupon requested to reduce the word count to comply with the word limit (seems that they are strict with regard to this). It would be nice if the journal would provide more precise information in the "Instructions for authors" which parts of the manuscript file count for the word limit (among other things, it is said title page information is exempt from the word count but not if the abstract is part of the title page information).
The speed of the review process was OK, I would consider to publish in this journal again.
n/a
n/a
301 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation: Exorbitant submission fee, no replies to inquiries, article reviewed by associate editor and editorial report justifying rejection was superficial and useless despite retaining the article for more than 10 months.
n/a
n/a
377 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: Submission fee excessive, lack of response to status requests, article not sent to referees and editorial report justifying rejection was short, mediocre and wrong after holding the article for more than one year.