Local Government Studies

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Local Government Studies has not yet provided information for this page.

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

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 4.7 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 14.4 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 1.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 20.4 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

The editorial role did not appear to give the sufficient guidance to the referees. The editor rejection of the first positive evaluations of the two first referees after the first revise-and-resubmit round appears as curious. This is especially so as it did not become fully credible that it indeed is the journal policy to recruit a third referee once the two original referees have been recommending acceptance. The process was not transparent to the author to the degree that the author could have verified if the third referee possibly was a member of the journal editorial board rather than somebody else, such as truly an external anonymous referee. The disappearance of this third referee also appears as curious, as the article was of standard length and simple in its structure. As to the two new referees that the editor recruited next, the process appears as somewhat unusual. How can it be that an article that first was almost accepted could become worse and worse despite rounds of rewriting as demanded by the editor and/or the referees? This journal has no very elevated impact point value, and publishes besides scholarly articles also articles devised by practitioners.