Reviews for "Applied Energy"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Applied Energy 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: One reviewer rejected because of "possible overlap" with 2 other manuscript with no access. This has no-sense since the preprints of the 2 other manuscripts were available online and the reviewer could verify the supposed "overlap".
The second reviewer claims that the topic of our article was not in the scope of the journal.
Applied Energy 5.4
weeks
6.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2019
Applied Energy 11.6
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The whole process is quite fast. However, the comments from one reviewer were really poor technically and not constructive. The Editor also asked to add more references to provide a wider state of the art review.
Applied Energy 7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The manuscript was handled fast. The reviewers provided a list of interesting remarks for a major revision. However, the editor estimate that the article was not in the topic of the journal.
Applied Energy 12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: The reviewers do not give important guidelines, they just wrote that the novelty was not important.
Applied Energy 6.1
weeks
6.1
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Paper submission management system is fast and effective.
Applied Energy 6.7
weeks
11.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Applied Energy n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Applied Energy n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Applied Energy 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: There was only one reviewer commenting on the paper and he obviously did not read the paper, but at most the abstract. The reviewer rejected the paper due to a single sentence in the abstract (which was, I agree, a bad way of putting things), but he would have come to a very different conclusion if he had read the paper.
Applied Energy 13.0
weeks
21.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2012
Applied Energy 30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: Out of the four reviewers, I got only two reviewers' comments that were in the negative. Both reviewers' pointed out the flaws in the manuscript which they already published just few years back, in one of their earlier papers without any issues. The reviewers' failed to look at the additional contribution of the paper, although it was mentioned in the introduction as well as emphasized in the conclusion. Of course, I agree that there were some limitation in my paper, and I already mentioned those as caveats. However, the reviewers' brought that out as a point of rejection. It's funny, because the earlier paper published by the journal didn't have some of the key aspects (that our paper addressed), both in terms of method and results, however was published. I think the reviewers' comments were somewhat biased. I will not be surprised if on of the reviewer's is the one whose paper we used as the basis to extend and improve on. I thanked the reviewers' and the editors, none the less, although expressing my objections to the first reviewers comments. Using the comments, none the less, I did minor revisions to the manuscript to avoid any confusion, and submitted to another outlet.
Applied Energy 11.1
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted 2012