Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
First decision was fast. Review comments wasn't mentioned.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The review process was fast and constructive comments were raised (2 reviewers, 5-6 questions each pertaining to addition of nomenclature table, suggestions to elaborate specific sections of paper in a certain way, formatting mistakes, in depth doubts with respect to material presented in paper etc). This was our first time publishing in a wiley energy journal other than Elsevier and the experience was better compared to the latter. Recommended journal.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
In this journal they follow, as I later discovered, the following procedure:
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
The editor FIRSTLY, without relying on scientific reviewers specialized in the field, attempts to ascertain the originality of the the manuscript. For this, he uses the on-line application called Ithenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/), that analyzes the text and performs web-based searches for identifying parts of the manuscript coincident with already published material.
Mine was rejected for having an index of coincidence greater than 20 % (it was 24 % as I later discovered). The only problem is that this included and added up a) Common, specialized clauses, such as e.g. "fluidized bed reactor" and many others, and b) The list of literature cited. (Ithenticate has an option to disallow that part, but it was "on" when analyzing my paper.) Being an specialized paper, both factors explained the high index of coincidence. Otherwise, neither in methods nor in subject of research nor results, Ithenticate detected anything coincident.
4.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2015