Latest review
First review round: 24.3 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
After 6 months waiting for a response from the reviewers we were surprised to see that the editor had sent our, strictly quantitative analysis, to a reviewer admitting he is a qualititative researcher (had no idea for the 80% of the paper in essence) and one (hopefully) quantitative whom was asking why we did not use fixed effects in a logit model and he was “concerned “ for the use of the sampling weights. Meanwhile they were provided with a full separate appendix providing the different sampling weights according to different boost-samples in different years while we are also re-scaling them to all account the same… Have not faced such a inadequate review process ever before… disappointing
