Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
4.4 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
6.8 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.8 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
4.7 / 5.0 (very difficult)
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
2.5 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
2.5 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 33.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
For a conceptual model deriving propositions, I received two reviews. One reviewer would have accepted to revise the manuscript, but the other rejeced it, basically with the argument that the model was too speculative and there are not enough theoretical or empirical studies supporting the propositions. When a new model is measured by these standards, only models that confirm existing knowledge (and develop porpositions out of empirical evidence?) are accepted. How can scientific progress be possible in this way? The editor followed the opinion of this reviewer and rejected it after one round. In total, this frustrating process took 33(!) weeks.