Government Information Quarterly

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Government Information Quarterly has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee?
n/a
Kind of complaint procedure
n/a
Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a
Disciplines: Law, Library

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 3.2 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 4.2 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 3.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 5.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 13.9 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The overall process was really fine. The first review round took longer than we had wished for because the second reviewer did neither accept nor decline the invitation and thus nothing happend for three months. We kindly asked the journal to remind the reviewer again, which then sped up the process a bit. We could not change the corresponding author. Only the corresponding auhtor can see any information on the process online and will receive the reviews from the editor. That is totally impractical as our corresponding author was not available all the time due to medical issues. This should have been handled better by the editor. The reviews were well written and fair, we managed to adress all points. The second review round only included one minor request - the editor accepted the manuscript two days later. Overall it was a good process.