Reviews for "ISA Transactions"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
95.5
weeks
95.5
weeks
n/a 4 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: This was the worst submission I have ever had. This is unbearable for a PhD student to waste 22 month for such an irregular journal. ŔźDuring this time, the editor was saying that he needs 1 additional review to make the decision.
14.1
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The reviewers were very objective in their reviews (major revision) and highlighted the critical issues with the paper. After resubmission, the paper was accepted without any further hurdle. The reviewers were less critical as I had uploaded videos of experimental results.
5.9
weeks
49.1
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
10.0
weeks
10.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
9.9
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 4 0
(very bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
15.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The paper has been submitted to reviewers and I received only comments from one reviewer and the comments of the editor. The editor decide to reject the paper for the following reason: 'This is not one of the application focuses of ISA Trans. There are number of journals in this area, as listed in References in the paper. The authors may consider to submit the paper to one of these journals'.

-Why they take more than three months to tell me that the paper is outside of the scope of the journal.