Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
19.4 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
n/a
n/a
96 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
It took one month to move from "submitted to Journal" to "with Editor" and then two months "With Editor" just to say that the paper was out of scope. Totally unprofessional
10.6 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The handling times by the editor were very long. After R1 reviews were completed, we had to ask about the progress, only after which we got the decision.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Even though it is normal that papers get rejected, we do not understand the motivation of the reviewer to reject the paper. It was clearly not because it was faulty or of insufficient quality, but only because what we present was not comply with his/hers belief and he/she simply did not like what we found in our study.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 57.0 days
Drawn back
2022
Motivation:
After almost two months of inactivity from the Editor, we decided to withdraw the manuscript. After two requests for information about the status of the manuscript, the Editor was contacted by the Journal Manager, but nothing happened.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
The reviews were obviously faulty as they neglected the common knowledge in the field. The second review was just one sentence. This is but a joke.
39.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
38 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
20.4 weeks
32.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
31.7 weeks
45.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
n/a
n/a
294 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
294 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation:
Almost one year to say that the manuscript is out of the scope of the journal! Totally not professional!
22.1 weeks
22.1 weeks
n/a
10 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
18.4 weeks
38.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Receiving reviews was very slow. However, the editorial team was efficient in providing feedback. The review comments (3 reviewers) were all high quality and contributed to an increase in the quality of the paper.
12.9 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The review process has been detailed and quite fast.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
17.1 weeks
29.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
26.0 weeks
27.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
No
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.