Reviews for "RSC Advances"

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 Year
RSC Advances 12.1
weeks		 12.3
weeks		 n/a 4 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2020
RSC Advances 4.0
weeks		 4.1
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2018
RSC Advances 2.6
weeks		 4.3
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2016
RSC Advances 3.9
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2017
RSC Advances 3.0
weeks		 3.0
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2018
Motivation: The review process was smooth. The payment process after acceptance was a bit cumbersome, as this is my first time to pay article processing charge (APC),
RSC Advances 10.4
weeks		 12.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2016
RSC Advances 4.7
weeks		 4.9
weeks		 n/a 1 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2017
RSC Advances 3.0
weeks		 3.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2016
RSC Advances 5.6
weeks		 5.7
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2016
RSC Advances n/a n/a 60.8
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: Although the editor wrote that the manuscript was sent to reviewers, I suspect this was not so.

Ref #1 wrote: "in view of the contents and formats (such as the format of references), I do not believe that RSC advances is an appropriate journal for its publication. I suggest that you submit the manuscript to a specialized journal" This is a remark of a technical editor and not a competent review.
Ref#2 wrote: "This manuscript aimed to develop a new algorithm to achieve accurate evaluation of experimental data. However, all the language and writings seem too specialized to understand by the general readers. I noticed that the authors took the example of sensory testing to introduce the algorithm."
Again, this info confirms the editor's decision "out of scope". Whether the decision was first and then a justification was written is unknown.
Unfortunately there is no way to check the editorial process. The referees do not seem to be independent from the editor.
RSC Advances n/a n/a 13.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Motivation: It is obvious the editor does not have enough knowledge in this area! last year I have published a lesser work of mine in this journal, and now I have received this comment.
RSC Advances 2.9
weeks		 5.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2016
RSC Advances 6.5
weeks		 6.5
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected 2016
Motivation: Two reviewers were involved. The first one was aggressive sending 15 paragraphs of criticisms regarding fairly everything in the manuscript. The report was full of sarcasm against the author. Fairly unprofessional. The second reviewer was more constructive, but rated the manuscript as not urgent enough. The editor chose to reject the manuscript.
RSC Advances 3.0
weeks		 3.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2015
RSC Advances 5.0
weeks		 7.0
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2015
Motivation: RSC Advances and in general all RSC journals have quite good reviewing policies. I always look for publishing papers in RSC journals.
RSC Advances 4.0
weeks		 6.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014
Motivation: RSC Advances ensures a speedy publication of the articles submitted to it.
RSC Advances 2.9
weeks		 2.9
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2015
RSC Advances 9.6
weeks		 10.6
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2015
Motivation: no comments
RSC Advances 9.3
weeks		 10.3
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2013
RSC Advances 13.0
weeks		 17.4
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2015
Motivation: Excellent Journal and very good review process