Reviews for "Biomass and Bioenergy"

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
Biomass and Bioenergy 22.4
weeks
22.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The peer review process was completed in less than two months, I supposed. However the journal was very slow in delivering the feedbacks to the authors, they waited for another reviewer to return the comments which took forever to respond. It ended up that we received 3 comments including one from the editor which mostly on technical parts. The journal is good, but the way they handle the review process could have been better than that.
Biomass and Bioenergy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 616 days Drawn back
Motivation: Our manuscript was under review in Biomass & Bioenergy for over 21 months without a first decision. Contacting the journal manager or editor did not help speed up the process. Things seemed to move forward but the process was never completed. After 21 months we withdrew the manuscript. For the last two months the manuscript was “under editor evaluation”. According to the journal manager, the associate editor had received all the needed reviewer reports. However, he was unable to make a decision. We got no response to our attempt to contact him.
Biomass and Bioenergy n/a n/a 91.2
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: 3 months for a rejection without external reviewers
Biomass and Bioenergy Drawn back before first editorial decision after 273 days Drawn back
Motivation: The process of reviewing took too long. Therefore, we did not wait for a decision. It was difficult to track the status of the manuscript.
Biomass and Bioenergy 30.6
weeks
57.6
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was OK but the journal response on the reviews was slow (manuscript hanging more than one month at the editorial office for each decision) and editors started their own review process after the real reviewers had done their job, focusing on technical matters. The associate editor also made a mistake and incorrectly studied our initial submission after the first revision round, and commented matters that were not relevant to the revised paper. Pointing out this mistake was obviously something we should never have done as the journal and is action is flawless. Eventually, the paper was however accepted.
Biomass and Bioenergy 34.7
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Biomass and Bioenergy 0.9
weeks
1.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: Good questions raised by referees;
Manuscript improved by revision process.

Criticism: revision process very long, it lasted more than 7 months
Biomass and Bioenergy 78.1
weeks
78.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.