Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The reviewing process was swift and professional. Reviewer comments were appropriate and helpful in improving the manuscript.
n/a
n/a
63 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The editor didn't assign reviewers for a very long time. After we inquired he asked us to send him some names, only to reject the paper without sending it for reviews, instead providing a "review" by a "member of the editorial team", who seemed to be clueless as to what the paper was actually about.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.
The entire process took 9 weeks -- far too long for such a rejection.
Motivation:
We understood exactly what the Journal of Management Inquiry wanted. They are a rigorous, though rather creative journal (the "New Yorker" magazine of the academic management world). Their comments helped the paper a lot.
Motivation:
Reviews were good
Motivation:
review was helpful
Motivation:
estions were made
Motivation:
Improveoodments suggested wre g
Motivation:
average quality of review
Motivation:
good review
Motivation:
The process of reviewing is long and you should know that before submission due to high volume of papers submitted to this reputable journal
Motivation:
Journal of World Business strives to move manuscripts along as well as giving good feedback and (when possible) more developmental reviews. Their process is generally very good, and timely and they publish excellent papers on management and international business.
Motivation:
Review was expert . It required revision but offered different alternatives to reach the requested revision
Motivation:
Very efficient and very accurate referee report
Motivation:
They were relatively slow in sending the paper to a reviewer. However the overall process length was reasonable. The referee did not understand the potential value of the paper and just gave generic comments.
Motivation:
The time we had to wait and the report were reasonable
Motivation:
The journal was fast and the review was seriuos
Motivation:
There have been some problems with the generated pdf from their platform; many equations where not displayed properly
Motivation:
Despite formally a rejection, the handling of case by the editors of JPART was excellent. They were courteous, quick and professional. The three referee reports were all constructive, highly professional, courteous and detailed. The author could hardly have received more valuable advice from elsewhere.
Motivation:
This is not the only positive case of this kind in my scholarly life. In this type case, the editor, who is a veterate authority in the respective scholarly field, obviously made it his cause to help the author to navigate through the process. This meant in this case, and meant the same in others, that the editor used his discretion as to what the referee reports imply. One way to express the character of this type of procedure is to indicate the editor as a coach, who sees in a manuscript values that can be cherished, and therefore assumes a constructive stand and helps the author to fulfil the requirements that the editor defines, using his discretion.
Motivation:
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.
Motivation:
This was a very rigorous review process. I felt the first revision was very useful and improved the manuscript substantially. But I believe subsequent revisions were unnecessary and superficial, but had to be done basically to satisfy a review who I felt didn't fully understand the study. Nevertheless I appreciated the thoroughness of the process and I am grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their efforts, although the whole process did take some time from start to completion (presumably due to the multiple revisions requested).
Motivation:
Although rejection was disappointing, the reviewer comments were very useful in helping me reconceptualizing the study and tightening up the manuscript to make it methodologically more sound and theoretically more relevant. I was also able to shorten the manuscript substantially and was thereby able to submit it to the journal that was actually my first choice and more directly related to the discipline (the previous version of the manuscript was too long for that journal).