Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
Smooth submission process. The decision was returned
within a reasonable timeframe, and the rejection notice
included substantive reviewer reports that engaged
directly with the manuscript.
Both reviewers had clearly read the work in full. The
first reviewer identified the main contribution areas
and raised targeted questions about novelty positioning,
runtime trade-offs, and the integration of the proposed
components. The second reviewer provided unusually deep
domain engagement, including detailed methodological
critique grounded in the simulation tool used and
specific page-level comments running through the entire
manuscript.
Although the outcome was rejection, the review reports
identified a fundamental conceptual issue that
ultimately reshaped the direction of the authors'
subsequent work. For authors submitting in
building-related simulation or modeling areas, this
journal appears to provide genuinely substantive peer
review, which is increasingly rare. The reviewer pool
seems to include domain experts capable of engaging
with technical detail rather than producing generic
templates. Recommended for authors who value
constructive review even at the cost of acceptance
probability.
within a reasonable timeframe, and the rejection notice
included substantive reviewer reports that engaged
directly with the manuscript.
Both reviewers had clearly read the work in full. The
first reviewer identified the main contribution areas
and raised targeted questions about novelty positioning,
runtime trade-offs, and the integration of the proposed
components. The second reviewer provided unusually deep
domain engagement, including detailed methodological
critique grounded in the simulation tool used and
specific page-level comments running through the entire
manuscript.
Although the outcome was rejection, the review reports
identified a fundamental conceptual issue that
ultimately reshaped the direction of the authors'
subsequent work. For authors submitting in
building-related simulation or modeling areas, this
journal appears to provide genuinely substantive peer
review, which is increasingly rare. The reviewer pool
seems to include domain experts capable of engaging
with technical detail rather than producing generic
templates. Recommended for authors who value
constructive review even at the cost of acceptance
probability.
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
21.7 weeks
24.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The time taken for the process could be shorter. Currently, a 9 months gestation period from manuscript to the published version is a little too long in my opinion.
19.2 weeks
24.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The overall handling of the manuscript was very pleasing and the reviewers' comments were very constructive. The time in review could be shorter but can be seen as justified due to the selection of appropriate reviewers - anyway, it was acceptable.
11.3 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The reviews were very constructive and allowed me to improve my manuscript.