Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.3 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Rejected
2022
Motivation: Only 1 reviewer was found after 3 months which is a bit strange. The field of the research is rather broad so not sure why they were only able to find 1 reviewer. Paper was submitted to another journal and was published, with several reviewers (more than 2).
14.4 weeks
17.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2020
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 170.0 weeks
Drawn back
2019
Motivation: The handling of submitted manuscripts by the journal was extremely too poor. The manuscript kept pending with the editor without sending for review nor making a decision whether to accept or reject even after several months of inquiry.
22.4 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2017
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.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 616.0 weeks
Drawn back
2017
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.
n/a
n/a
91 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: 3 months for a rejection without external reviewers
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 273.0 weeks
Drawn back
2017
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.
30.6 weeks
57.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
2
Accepted
2016
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.
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
2015
0.9 weeks
1.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Good questions raised by referees;
Manuscript improved by revision process.

Criticism: revision process very long, it lasted more than 7 months
78.1 weeks
78.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
2012
Motivation: The editor rejected the paper without a reason and after 18 months of revision.