Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
2.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The positive experience is, the review process only took two weeks. However, the editor wanted us to resubmit a "major revision" in just fourteen days, which is too short a period of time by any reasonable standard. More importantly, the reviewers' comments were written in poor English that was sometimes impossible to understand. Some of the comments demonstrated the fact that reviewers' didn't understand the paper. Some comments were about our English, which is a little strange given the incomprehensible way in which our reviewers themselves have rendered their comments.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
We informed the editorial assistant that we were going to withdraw our submission. However, the assistant insisted that we resubmit. We did, and our manuscript got rejected. One motivation was that our response was not polite, which we find rather weird a motivation for an academic journal. Our decision is to abstain from submitting to this journal again.
2.3 weeks
2.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The speed of review was quick. Reviewers commented step by step issues of manuscript with suggestions what have to be improved. Overall impressions of submitting manuscript is positive. Will try to submit new manuscript again.
0.1 weeks
0.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
This journal's pretty quick in handling the manuscripts but the quality of reviews might not be high.
3.6 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Quick peer review process
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
We sent in a paper and we got it back after one round of revision with fairly minor comments. We addressed the comments and resubmitted thinking it was going to be accepted fast.
To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.
Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
To our surprise, the second round of review took a lot longer than the first, and the outcome was a rejection motivated by a long review by the editor in which he had a lot of critiques, completely different from those expressed by the two reviewers. Most of what the editor commented on 1) showed he did not understand the paper and/or 2) was relatively trivial staff that could easily have addressed in the revision, had he given his comments to the original submission.
Very weird experience overall. Handling time was decent, at least.
4.9 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Reviewing process was thorough, communication was quick.
6.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
A very fast journal, authors can also get constructive comments from the reviewers. I will recommend it to people who don't like to wait for the long reviewing process.
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015