Reviews for "Nonlinear Dynamics"

Review this journal Show journal page
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
Nonlinear Dynamics 6.0
weeks		 6.3
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Nonlinear Dynamics 10.3
weeks		 13.4
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: I used to submit my most important works to NONLINEAR DYNAMICS, and a section as open problems is often supplied for readers' extensive guidance in this field. NONLINEAR DYNAMICS published many imporant papers about neurodynamics and they are helpful for readers. Most of them are highly cited and welcome to us. Most of the reviewers are active and the AEs are kind with supplying helpful additive suggestions.
Nonlinear Dynamics 1.4
weeks		 1.4
weeks		 n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Nonlinear Dynamics 15.1
weeks		 19.3
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall procedure of the review was acceptable and constructive.
Reviewers' comments have contained very professional questions and suggestions.
Nonlinear Dynamics 23.9
weeks		 23.9
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected
Motivation: Takes for a long time.
Nonlinear Dynamics 4.0
weeks		 4.0
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Rejected
Motivation: The reports were timely and professionally written.
Nonlinear Dynamics 19.7
weeks		 23.0
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted
Motivation: The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall process of review was quick and constructive.
Reviewers' comments denoted a high knowledge of the subject and they certainly improved the manuscript.
Nonlinear Dynamics 4.3
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers were not expert in the field of the paper and their comments were meaningless and some of them were theoritically incorrect. Generally, the reviwers' comments did not contain helpful information and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.