Follow @scirev on Twitter
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 | n/a | n/a | 3.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2021 |
| Motivation: Generic desk rejection. Lack of scientific novelty/contribution. Authors could not follow this motivation. |
||||||||
| Applied Energy | 3.1 weeks |
3.1 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2021 |
| Motivation: 3 out of 4 reviewers were describing the paper being well-written and explicitly mention the novelty of the submitted work in their reviews. One of these reviewers had several questions/suggestions that could be answered and addressed by the authors. On the other hand, the fourth reviewer just wrote two sentences that it is not well-written, no novelty at all and not publishable. No logic behind this rejection by the editor! |
||||||||
| Applied Energy | 1.4 weeks |
4.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| Applied Energy | 21.6 weeks |
21.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 0 (very bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Applied Energy | 4.0 weeks |
4.0 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 0 (very bad) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2018 |
| Motivation: The reviews were obviously written by a same person and contained shallow notes like insufficient conclusions/literature review/figure quality. Some more specific comments were not relevant at all. By the way, reviews were written in awkward English. The reviews were just several sentences long. In general, I consider this as a scam which repeated during several submissions. | ||||||||
| 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 |