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.