Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.9 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2019
41.0 weeks
41.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
After 10 months review time, editor rejected our manuscript although the other reviewer was very positive and the other reviewer recommended only minor changes. Rejection is not a problem, however, ten months delay caused by an average impact journal is unacceptable.
63.0 weeks
63.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Our manuscript was submitted in 2016, but we did not receive any review until 2018. Every 3-4 months we wrote emails, but the manager claimed he could not recruit reviewers. We ourselves provided 10 reviewer candidacies. In 2018 we received one review, which claimed that our manuscript "was very interesting. The content within the paper was well developed and the research was completed thoroughly. From a technical aspect, the paper was done well. However, the paper faced many grammatical errors including the misuse of commas". In the same email our manuscript was rejected without giving us a chance to correct the grammar. We tried to appeal to the Principal Editor, but received just a formal reply. Next month we submitted our manuscript to Fuel Processing Technology. It was reviewed and published in less than 2 months
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
13.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Overall positive experience
52.1 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Drawn back
2013
Motivation:
There is no any editorial disciplne. The paper was kept 1 year. Very poor managerial skills of the editors and indifference to the work of other people.
4.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014