Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
In other SCI journals, there were instances of aggressive comments unrelated to improving paper quality, criticisms regarding simple English grammar, and criticisms of a lack of novelty without explanation. The reviewers for the Waste Management journal were experts in the field and provided precise guidelines for quality improvement. Although the speed is slower compared to other journals, I consider it the most reliable and best journal.
8.7 weeks
10.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The journal maintained reasonable time for handling the paper. The reviews were professional and constructive. The editor suggested some corrections to improve the quality of the paper.
9.6 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
7.1 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
There were four reviewers for the 1st round of revision, and then one reviewer for the second round. The journal handled the review process effectively.
21.0 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
50 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
Submission was rejected because it was considered out of the journal scope. It took 7 weeks for this decision.
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Editor final comment about rejection is not consistent with reviewers' comments and suggestions. So, it was not clear why the paper was not accepted.
13.0 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2011
Motivation:
Reasonable speed for answer, good quality reviews that added value to the paper.
13.0 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011