Reviews for "ISA Transactions"

Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
1^st 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. ِDuring 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.