Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The review process was quick; I had the decision in my email in a month time.
However, one of the reviews did not match the content and the nature of my article, which I considered a serious ethical problem, especially because decisions are based on the reviews. Additionally, I noticed a lack of balance in the comments; both reviewers over-emphasised the downsides of the article, but no mention whatsoever of its potential contribution for this or other readership.
I tried to reach the Editor to explain the issues with a breakdown of the mismatching review. After the second attempt, he answered very briefly that the decision would not be changed.
I am very disappointed about this journal, and I doubt I'll ever send them an article again.
However, one of the reviews did not match the content and the nature of my article, which I considered a serious ethical problem, especially because decisions are based on the reviews. Additionally, I noticed a lack of balance in the comments; both reviewers over-emphasised the downsides of the article, but no mention whatsoever of its potential contribution for this or other readership.
I tried to reach the Editor to explain the issues with a breakdown of the mismatching review. After the second attempt, he answered very briefly that the decision would not be changed.
I am very disappointed about this journal, and I doubt I'll ever send them an article again.