Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
It would be nice to get more than one reviewer, because like this changes are subjective. And often motivated by reviewers own career goals.
Motivation:
Only complaint is just one reviewer. More opinions would be welcomed. My reviewer was young, probably student. That was obvious from the comments. Having someone more experienced to review the paper would be beneficial.
Motivation:
The first review round took a very long time!
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