Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 72.0 days
Drawn back
2026
Motivation: After submitted my manuscript to HSSC I receiving no updates. I followed up with the journal after 62 days to inquire about the status. In their response, they explained that they were facing significant difficulties securing a handling editor and had not yet found the right person to take on the paper. They noted that their editorial board consists of a voluntary external panel, meaning members have the autonomy to decline manuscript assignments. This made the situation clear: the bottleneck was not a lack of peer reviewers, but a more fundamental issue at an earlier stage. The process was entirely stalled at the internal editor-assignment level before peer review could even begin. Because the submission was stuck at this preliminary phase with no resolution in sight, I withdrew my manuscript and have since submitted it to another journal.
8.7 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
0
Rejected
2024
Motivation: The journal appears overly fixated on certain formalistic requirements. For instance, during the review process, they demanded raw data and insisted that IRB approval dates must precede data collection. While rigor is certainly commendable, excessive formalism becomes counterproductive—especially when the editorial team disregards researchers' explanations, wasting everyone's time. In fact, our study did not involve any physical or psychological impact on participants; it was merely a social survey on certain attitudes, which arguably did not require IRB approval at all. Ironically, our commitment to rigor—providing the IRB approval number—ended up becoming the very reason for rejection.
n/a
n/a
33 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation: This journal requires strict initial quality check such as ethical approvals and informed consent.
The editorial staff are responsive and email replies are prompt.