Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
0.6 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The review process was very long, and most reviewers provided only general comments that did not significantly improve the manuscript. Additionally, the frequent change of reviewers made it difficult to progress, leaving authors stuck in a cycle of repeated revisions.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.
Although the journal is open access, the production team introduced many errors during publication. The final manuscript appears noticeably different from the author proof version, with misplaced figures and formatting inconsistencies. This significantly reduces the quality and reliability of the published version.
Overall, while the journal provides a platform for open access publishing, improvements are needed in both the review process and production quality to ensure timely, accurate, and author-friendly publication.