Latest review
First review round: 8.9 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
The reviews were generally very good and greatly improved the paper, although on the second round one reviewer made confident (but incorrect) assertions about the results, so we appreciated that the editor was not overly swayed by these remarks and took a fair and considered view. The review process was a little on the slow side, but much better than how Cognition used to be. We were a little confused about the double blind review process that has recently been introduced. The submission system specifically asks you to confirm that all funding sources are acknowledged in the manuscript, but the manuscript was then returned to us because we included the funding information as requested. Then, after the second round, the editor indicated that the manuscript would be accepted with a small revision and would not undergo further review, but after sitting with Elsevier for a two weeks, the revised manuscript was returned to us again for not being anonymized (even though there was no real need for anonymization at this final stage). So, tip for the future submitters: Make sure everything is totally anonymous all the way to the end, and then fix the acknowledgements and anonymous OSF/prereg links at the proofs stage.
