Old-fashioned journal, very traditional in its ways. Reliable and straightforward, there's no fancy stuff like recommending reviewers yourself, the reviewers and editors follow a set workflow. The reviewers they find, while their expertise and stance may be debatable, have at least read the article carefully. There seems to be an internal standard for the workflow, everyone can raise questions around a few common angles, and not like some OA journals that find reviewers who are not familiar with the subfield and have messy review comments. The downside is it's too slow, every revision takes three to four months, we had a major revision and a minor revision, which took up a year in total

(0) 讚！ | 田品