Latest review
First review round: 8.7 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
One reviewer chastises us for not citing just under 40(!) additional publications. We barely made the word limit without citing them. We are glad to have the cites but its not realistic to add that many in this paper.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
