Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.7 weeks
13.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2026
Motivation:
The review time was reasonable—neither too fast nor too slow. Both reviewers provided comments that improved the manuscript and demonstrated a good understanding of the subject matter. In addition, prior to the peer review, the editor offered some minor comments that were also helpful. After acceptance, publication was also quick (just over a week).
n/a
n/a
161 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
More than 5 months for a desk rejection is unacceptable and far blow any standards.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.
The EiC first asked for some edits to the format and said the "the reviewers found some merit" in the manuscript.
Four months later, it was rejected ("not a good fit for the journal"). The way of communicating the decision was inappropriate and disrespectful. We will not submit to Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition again.