Reviews for "Fuel"

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
Fuel 10.9
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Fuel 41.0
weeks
41.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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.
Fuel 63.0
weeks
63.0
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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
Fuel n/a n/a 12.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Fuel n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Fuel 13.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Overall positive experience
Fuel 52.1
weeks
52.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Drawn back
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.
Fuel 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted