Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.7 weeks
3.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
Deeply disappointed by our experience with this journal. We had one reviewer who provided very brief feedback, all of which were easily addressed, but did not provide any clear reason for rejection. The second review was extremely limited and gave strong signs of being AI generated. It was very basic and included tips such as "please report all abbreviations in full throughout the whole manuscript" (why?) and "please add a section about strengths and limitations". (There was already a section titled strengths and limitations in the discussion section). The reviews gave no indication as to why the paper had been rejected.
As a researcher, I am well accustomed to paper rejections, but this was a very disappointing encounter. I doubt we will submit to them again.
As a researcher, I am well accustomed to paper rejections, but this was a very disappointing encounter. I doubt we will submit to them again.