Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.0 weeks
30.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The editor was nice. The reviewers gave strong remarks. A very good first experience in publishing articles
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to too many submissions, even though my paper went through a positive first round of reviews.
30.4 weeks
32.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The changes proposed by reviewers were quite interesting and contributed to the paper improvement; however, the first review was slow and took too much time to be accomplished.
20.3 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The review process was long enough which is fine in this line of work and given that the Energy journal is prestigious but waiting almost 4.5 months for two review comments, each of 2-3 lines (meaningless comments: related to changing spellings, abbreviations) was discouraging with this journal. Also one reviewer doubting the link of paper to the Energy journal when the editor has deemed it fit for review astonishes me. Overall Bad experience.
8.0 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The Journal is very valuable and the reviews are deep and detailed. The only not good thing I found was that the final acceptance process is quite low, but, in general, I consider the Journal as high performance.
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
8.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
5.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
26.0 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
the first review process was very slow
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The first reviewer (who rejected the paper) wrote exactly one sentence. It is really hard to grasp why the paper was rejected from such a short information.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.
The second reviewer did a lengthy, very complete review of my work, and raised several important points that later on improved the paper. However, he was obviously biased against my research topic and the reason for rejection was not quite clear.