Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.7 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
We received three reports from three reviewers. Two of them were knowledgeable commenting on the topic and asked for minor changes that all were addressed in the 1st round review. The 3rd reviewer described him/her self as "informed about the topic but never publish in the topic". The 3rd reviewer was dismissive of everything. His main comment was approved mathematically wrong.
We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments.
We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision.
Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final
We addressed all of the comments in both the paper and the response letter. Our paper got rejected with a couple of lines only from the 3rd reviewer only stating that we did not address his comments.
We rate down this journal due to the unusual procedure of rejecting a paper based on one unspecialised reviewer and ignoring the other two reviewers' decision.
Note that this journal does not have appeal policy and the decision of the editor is final
18.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The manuscript was submitted on 1st May on a Special Issue. The outcome of the review process was expected on 31st July. On 28th August, we sent an email to the guest Editor asking for some news without any reply. On 8th September, we sent an email to the Editor in Chief, who imformed us about the rejection with only one attached review.