Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.3 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
The editor claimed that he rejected the manuscript taking account of the reviewers' views. However, the reviewers' reports were very short and gave no substantial reasons why it had to be rejected. So the decision came as a surprise since the editor, in his rejection letter, attached his chapter in press suggesting I read it and understand the objective of this journal. This comment alluded that my manuscript, from the very beginning, did not fall within the scope of the journal. Then the editor should have rejected and returned the manuscript at the outset. It was just waste of time.