Reviews for "International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer"

Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
33.9 weeks	33.9 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected	2021
Motivation: A reviewer probably did not read our manuscript but just showed general opinions since there are not any specific comments on our manuscript. There would be another possibility that the comments were made for the other paper review and they were used again as the present review without reading our paper. Another reviewer posed just some short specific comments only for the definition of Nusselt number. Besides, the reviewer misunderstood it. An editor did not check these reviewers' comments carefully and judged the manuscript did reach the required quality of the standard journal. This was the most terrible experience that I have ever had. For this unfair decision, I sent emails several times to the editor, but I have not received any replies from him at all.
8.3 weeks	9.9 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2019
Motivation: Although I think 2 of the reviewers provided moderate comments and one of them believed that the work should be rejected, the other one provided literarily excellent comments and made the paper much better.
60.1 weeks	60.1 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2020
Motivation: minor comments from the reviewer to add some precision on experimental devices.
30.6 weeks	33.0 weeks	n/a	3	2 (moderate)	3 (good)	Accepted	2019
Motivation: Even though IJHMT is highly prestigious journal in heat transfer field, the first review round took so long (approx. 5.5 moths). Also, the quality of the reviews sent us was not so good. The manuscript became more solid after revision, but I guess we expected more qualified comments. After all, the period after editorial decision was very quick and satisfied. If the review period is managed more strictly, the journal will become perfect.
7.6 weeks	7.6 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2019
Motivation: very positive and constructive comments were addressed by one reviewer. The second reviewer was very concise.
18.0 weeks	20.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2019
Motivation: the reviewers had constructive remarks. However, the manuscript was too long with too many details on the numerical method and its validation. To my point of view, it was not justified to reduce the length of the manuscript since it was a complete work useful for other researchers.
n/a	n/a	4.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2016
2.7 weeks	3.0 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2015
n/a	n/a	0.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2014
Motivation: While negative, the answer was very quick.
6.0 weeks	8.0 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2015
71.9 weeks	71.9 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2014
Motivation: The process of reviewing is long and you should know that before submission due to high volume of papers submitted to this reputable journal
13.0 weeks	13.1 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2014
0.1 weeks	6.1 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2012
Motivation: Online publishing system for sending a little messy. The editor replied quickly. One of the reviewers did not respond for a long time, although his comments related only to the style of the text.