Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Two of the three reviewers had only minor comments to improve the manuscript while one reviewer had a problem with one aspect of our work. After two rounds of revision and three rounds of review, all but one reviewer was satisfied with how we addressed their concerns, including that of the other reviewer. The editor finally rejected our manuscript because he/she was apparently unable to accept a manuscript if all reviewers were not in agreement. We felt the editor was very passive in the review process and could have avoided a lot of time spent revising and reviewing the manuscript if he/she had overruled a clearly unreasonable reviewer, or rejected the manuscript earlier recognizing that one of the reviewers was not going to be convinced by any changes that we made.
Motivation:
I believe that one of the reviews was quite unfair in the way that one of the main criticism could be applied to a wide range of papers, including those already published in the journal itself. However, the editors decided to favour the rather unfair biased review rather than the other positive one.
Motivation:
The editors took 9 months to come to the first decision and I understand that our paper wasn't the only one that took such a long time.
Motivation:
The journal executed the review process quickly, which is always appreciated. However, the reviews were poorly written and poorly executed--to the extent that it is questionable whether or not some of the reviewers actually read the manuscript. The quality and helpfulness of the reviews was supplanted by the speed of the review process.
Motivation:
Time between submission and reviewer reports too long and difficult communication with editorial office when trying to determine the status of the submission.
Motivation:
The procedure was efficient and quick.
Motivation:
Reviews were substantive. The review process was smooth, and the review rounds have taken the the same amount of time. Time between submission and publication were below 9 months.
Motivation:
In addition to the 2 referee reports, the (associate) editor made some very helpful remarks that improved the presentation.
Motivation:
Four months overall for an answer is quite OK; the reviewer was reasonably quick (around 2 months) and obviously an expert on the topic of the paper; after receiving the referee's report, the editors took about 1 month to send the decision out. (Time estimated are derived from the updates on the paper status from the journal's website.)
Motivation:
Excellent, very speed process; high quality revisions
Motivation:
The editor replied immediately and provided constructive feed-back for possible revisions.
Motivation:
The review process took 17 months. The reviewers had no expertise in the relevant theory or methods. When I tried to contact the editorial office to get an update on the status of our submission, I got no response. (Efforts to contact the journal included 6 attempts directed at the editor and managing editor, and included both email and telephone messages.)
Motivation:
The two reviews for my manuscript were excellent. However, I would have liked to see more interaction between the the anonymous reviewers in terms of responding to some of their more content-based analyses and comments. It seemed as though my revisions were signed off by an editor, rather than by the reviewers. So this part of the review process could be clarified. Essentially, I would have liked to ensure that my response to some theoretical challenges was acceptable and/or justified correctly by the reviewers themselves.
I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
I was quite pleased with the entire process. The deadlines for responding to comments were enough and extensions were possible. If anything, I took longer to address the comments. This paper might have been able to be finalized 1-2 months sooner. I highly recommend considering ASDE for submission. But it is important to read the author guidelines and incorporate those into your first submission from the get-go!
Motivation:
Economics Letters used to be extremely slow. The current editorial team has really improved things.
Motivation:
The comments by the reviewers were constructive and resulted in a better paper at the end. All their concern were well founded. What is most important is that the manuscript was not rejected straight away, and allowed the resubmission of the corrected manuscript.
The Editor was also very professional and supportive.
The Editor was also very professional and supportive.
Motivation:
The journal considered our manuscript "out of scope" and thus rejected it.
The process was fast and relatively clear.
The process was fast and relatively clear.
Motivation:
The editor was extremely efficient and professional.
The review process was quick.
The review process was quick.
13.1 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Excellent, personal communication with journal's office. Speedy reviews. Mixed quality of reviews: one from external reviewe (very good quality), another from one of the editors (poor quality, offensive tone). Production process at Springer was a complete desaster: someone in India added multiple errors to the manuscript.
Motivation:
I received my rejection in less than 3 months, the reviews were of exceptionally high quality and improved the later version of my paper significantly.
Motivation:
The review reports were of high quality and helpful for strenghtening the paper.