Reviews for "iForest"

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
iForest n/a n/a 16.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The decision said that the MS cannot be considered for peer review in its present form, because it does not fit with journal’s format rules.
They required reduction in the cited references(from 79 to max50), reduction the number of figures and tables. We thought that such a truncation of reference list and illustration materials would lead to a diminution of the scientific value of the study, so we looked for another journal for the next submission.
iForest 8.0
n/a 3 3