Reviews for "Journal of Alloys and Compounds"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2.4
weeks
2.6
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quick and painless.
Reviewer's comments were fair and very helpful.
Journal of Alloys and Compounds n/a n/a 26.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: After 2 weeks management team told that "due to the high inflow of papers we currently have, the paper is currently in the pipeline with the assignment team and it will be assigned to the editor shortly"
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 4.7
weeks
4.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 15.7
weeks
17.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Accepted
Motivation: In my opinion, the review process took too long. After almost four months of "under review" status, I contacted the editor asking what was going on. The reviews were sent to me about a week after my query, so it seems it was necessary to ask the editor to urge the reviewers. Received reviews were very accurate and it was clear the reviewers read and reviewed the manuscript carefully. The publishing process after acceptance was quick and well managed.
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 12.9
weeks
12.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: From the two of reviewers, the first reviewer gave valuable scientific comments, it is so encouraging to extend my knowledge. I really pay my sincere thanks to first reviewer.
But.... the second reviewer even he doesn't know how to comment on the review papers, and in my opinion he doesn't know subject and finally he recommended not suitable for publication.
The editor must have sent it to another reviewer, but he did not do that.