Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
The quality of some of the published papers is a mere shame, so I am happy this editor rejected consistently all the papers (2 or 3) we submitted. Imagine that a paper on the fatigue behavior of titanium alloy dental implants.....does not belong to "dental materials". That really makes me wonder. What is more sad is the lack of reaction of Elsevier who decided not to interfere with the decision. papers were never sent for review, they were rejected outright with a standard letter. The Editor ignored all correspondence.