Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
We were dissatisfied with only one review, with which we personally not fully agree.
5.4 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Manuscript has too many figures and tables was given as the main reason for rejection, which leads me to believe this journal is interested only in publishing abstract and vague articles with no focus on scientific detail or rigour. Which is not surprising, given they have had retract a large number of previous papers with erroneous results and data. Not a recommended journal.
3.9 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Immediately accepted after 4.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2016
Motivation:
This was my first submitted paper in this journal. The review process was completely good and the review process lasted about 1 month.
24.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
20 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
Unfair consideration by the Assistant Editor whose reasons for rejection were: (1) "the initial scrutiny of your manuscript has revealed that your manuscript has a very limited scope for our journal", which was quite surprising, because the journal has specific rubric on the issue; (2) "it has not been formatted properly according to author's guidelines", which was the height because the manuscript was prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines point by point.