Reviews for "Journal of Nonlinear Science"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
20.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Rejected
2017
Motivation: I received two reports: one very positive, constructive and to the point. The other, very negative, agressive and offensive, and with vague words about the paper itself. After the decision was communicated, I wrote to the editor-in-chief, saying that the negative report was extremely rude and not technica. He then asked me to write a rebuttal letter and he would then send my letter and the manuscript to an adjuticator. This third reviewer made a positive report of our results, but recommended rejection saying that the problem which we were considering was more theoretical and not necessarily related to nonlinear problems coming from real problems. Although I read in this journal papers not necessarily coming from real problems, I can accept this argument. Overall, my opinion about the whole process was positive.