Reviews for "Applied Soft Computing"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Motivation: Even though an editor from another, related journal (Expert Systems with Applications) proposed to transfer the manuscript to this journal for reasons of fit, the editor of ASC rejected it straight away because it was deemed out of scope for the journal.
38.9
weeks
48.9
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The peer review system of Applied Soft Computing is exceptionally bad. First, the associate editor has much power on the editorial decisions. My paper was undergone 3 major revisions. At the end of this, the 2 reviewers (of earlier cycle) stated that the points are properly addressed. However, the associate editor reported that "he has not yet satisfied with the revision". In order to reject the paper, he send the paper to a completely different reviewer . In addition, the Editor or associate editor never replied to any of my messages. It was a totally frustrating experience.
17.4
weeks
82.5
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Drawn back 2013
Motivation: This journal is really irregular. no respect to the author
5 review process and each time new reviewers even after minor revision (changing few sentences). 11 reviewers revise our paper in 20 months. and some time their comments was inconsistent.
Even one time we has sent an email to the editor to ask about status and after one month he said the paper is rejected in first glance (after two revision) and did not respond to our email any more. after one month another revision made on our paper!!!!
finally after 5th revision we decided not to resubmit our paper into this journal.
I can surely say that they waste our time for two years and I will never ever send anything for this journal.
n/a n/a 617.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: After 20 MONTHS the editor just sent the following strange and unprofessional report:

1. The paper does not have significant contribution to soft computing.
2. Lacks novelty.
3. No comparative study.
4. Lacks details for repeatability of the experiments.