Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "Energy"
| 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 | Year |
| Energy | 5.4 weeks |
5.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2019 |
| Motivation: The editor was nice. The reviewers gave strong remarks. A very good first experience in publishing articles | ||||||||
| Energy | 14.4 weeks |
14.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: The paper was rejected due to too many submissions, even though my paper went through a positive first round of reviews. | ||||||||
| Energy | 30.4 weeks |
32.8 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
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. | ||||||||
| Energy | 20.3 weeks |
20.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
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. | ||||||||
| Energy | 8.0 weeks |
36.1 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
3 (good) |
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. | ||||||||
| Energy | 8.7 weeks |
9.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2012 |
| Energy | 8.0 weeks |
11.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2014 |
| Energy | 8.7 weeks |
9.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Energy | 5.0 weeks |
7.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2015 |
| Energy | 26.0 weeks |
30.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2014 |
| Motivation: the first review process was very slow | ||||||||
| Energy | 4.3 weeks |
4.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 0 (very bad) |
2 (moderate) |
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. |
||||||||