Reviews for "Applied Energy"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st 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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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
Applied Energy	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