Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
3.3 weeks
3.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The submission system of the journal is modern and comfortable. The consideration of the MS was rather fast. The first reviewer was positive on our MS, but had some serious remarks like making an experimental research for a theoretical paper.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
However, the second reviewer was too picky. Some of his suggestions were out of the line and rather stupid. Like, for example, the comparison of relative total energies of the complexes does not make sense. However, it was not a comparison of absolute energies. We send the MS back following the revision with step-by-step thorough answers. But reviewer 2 was still too opposing towards our MS and rejected it the second time also.
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
After 6 weeks after submission, we have received 2 reviews - one positive and one negative. Unfortunately, the editor inclined to the negative review and rejected the manuscript. We wrote appeal letter, because the negative review was absolutely out of the bowl, using unscientific based arguments...we were writing 4 pages long appeal letter for the WHOLE DAY, carefully argumenting each reviewer statement. It takes only 5 MINUTES to getting answer from editor-in-chief: "You need to send it to some other journal". So, he couldn´t open and read our appeal letter. I think, such behavior is very unfair and nonprofessional.