Reviews for "Nano Energy"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Nano Energy 7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 1 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Only 1 reviewer report was provided along with the rejection letter. The reviewer comments mostly focused on the technical imperfection of the paper instead of the scientific significance/knowledge the paper bears. One of the exact comment from the reviewer sounds "The original idea of the paper is lackluster to be considered for publication in high impact journal like Nano Energy". The editor's decision based solely on a single reviewer's comments is unconvincing.
Nano Energy 4.7
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The decision was taken using the only negative, unchanged report of one reviewer (evidently biased) during the review process against two other very positive review reports. The authors do not understand the reason behind it.
Nano Energy 8.7
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Accepted