Reviews for "Renewable 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
Renewable Energy n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Renewable Energy 29.7
weeks
29.7
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
Motivation: After 7.5 months, the editor only managed to obtain one external review. This one review was mildly negative; most comments were related to stylistic concerns or requests for clarification of some points. The reviewer
The conclusion the editor came to was this: "As you can see we based our decision on just one review. The paper is also evaluated by the Subject Editor who agrees with the reviewer. "
The subject editor's remarks were not included. After 7.5 months we received a rejection and almost no constructive feedback on how to improve the paper.

The subject matter was fluid mechanics. Colleagues have had similar experiences with other fluid mechanics papers, although papers in other subjects have been treated relatively fairly.




Renewable Energy 17.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Renewable Energy 4.4
weeks
4.4
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: My paper was submitted as part of a Special Issue. I did not receive any peer review feedback.
Renewable Energy 10.7
weeks
12.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was quite fast and very useful for the paper improvement. The reviewers comments were clear and well-justified. After paper accepting, the editing process was fast and very simple.
Renewable Energy 30.4
weeks
39.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Renewable Energy 17.4
weeks
18.8
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Renewable Energy 11.3
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
3
(good)
Accepted