Reviews for "Information Sciences"

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
Information Sciences 4.3
weeks
4.3
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: As the best comment may serve the first review I've got:

This paper has not reached to the acceptable level for publication in this top journal and lacks originality and novelty. The technical depth of this paper is superficial. No new techniques are presented in this paper. Authors need to bring novelty and originality to their work. Thus, the paper in the current form is not suitable for publication in this top journal. I reject this paper.

which is a clear evidence that the reviewer has not seen the work. The editor should not allow such reviews.
Information Sciences n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Fast review by the editorial team and the communication was great.
Information Sciences 20.9
weeks
29.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Information Sciences 23.3
weeks
44.0
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: There have been some problems with the generated pdf from their platform; many equations where not displayed properly
Information Sciences 9.1
weeks
9.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Motivation: Reviewing process was fast (it was an special issue). The reviews were of an average quality but not disapointing. Useful for the paper improvement.