Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Despite one positive and one negative review, the editor did not provide us with an opportunity to respond to the latter.
Motivation:
I contacted the associate editor 5 times and the editor-in-chief twice, during the review process, but I didn't get a response. The peer-review process and quality were poor and irresponsible.
Motivation:
It seems that two of the referees did not possess very deep knowledge of the main theoretical literature, and one of the reviewers admitted he/she is neither sociologist nor philosopher. Furthermore, the comment about country selection is unfair: postdoc projects work like this. To get funding, you are supposed to find an interesting comparative case, and there are some reasons for this but for the topic of the manuscript it could have been anywhere. It is just that my project got funding to study these two particular countries.
Motivation:
The review process was not extra long despite the hard times of COVID pandemic.
The collected reviews were professional. One reviewer was supportive, however the others criticized that the topic is out of the scope of the journal. It was a bit strange that the strictest reviewer meticuously criticized some very-very minor points (like usage of synonims, or the color of a line in a figure) of the manuscript.
Anyway, we agreed that a part of the discussion is a bit out of the scope of the journal, so we considered some comments of the reviewers and submit the revised version to a different journal.
The collected reviews were professional. One reviewer was supportive, however the others criticized that the topic is out of the scope of the journal. It was a bit strange that the strictest reviewer meticuously criticized some very-very minor points (like usage of synonims, or the color of a line in a figure) of the manuscript.
Anyway, we agreed that a part of the discussion is a bit out of the scope of the journal, so we considered some comments of the reviewers and submit the revised version to a different journal.
Motivation:
I received a personalized rejection letter explaining the reasons why the manuscript was not appropriate for the readership. Albeit short, it pointed out useful feedback in publication strategy.
4.4 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The first-round review took 15 weeks but the reviewer's comments were very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. After sending out the rebuttal letter to the editor, we received the accepted decision within one day.
Motivation:
The overall submission process was neat. Unfortunately, the review report that resulted in rejection contained false statements.
Motivation:
JME say that they take a developmental approach to working with authors, and this was certainly my experience. The reviews were insightful but extremely constructive. I learnt a lot from two of the reviewers (one review was very light) and my paper was greatly improved, and makes a much stronger contribution now.
Motivation:
The process was reasonably fast and quite transparent. The reviewer's report was short but reasonable and well argumented.
Motivation:
The declared manuscript handling delays were respected throughout the process, the peer reviews and comments from the academic editor were in-depth and constructive. The only negative are the relatively high publication fees.
Motivation:
The journal did not give any reason for rejection. Even a few lines of feedback would have helped improve my manuscript, or help decide the next journal. Overall, I found time to desk rejection too long.
Motivation:
The process was quick and transparent. The argument for the decision is solid and well justified.
Motivation:
The time of submission to first review is approx. 1 month. Second revision reviews might come in approx. a month after submission. Final decision comes in a few weeks time. Overall, the quality of review is excellent. Definitely helps improving the paper.
Motivation:
I found the review process very fast and adequate.
Motivation:
While this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 weeks is unreasonable when the journal claims a rapid process. Moreover, the editor did not respond in a timely manner to numerous inquiries. It has now been over 2 weeks since submitting the response to reviewers' comments, and the editor has not responded. Not responding is unprofessional.
15.4 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process was very rapid. Review comments were constructive but limited in scope. Editor assessment was constructive but limited in scope. All correspondence was handled professionally.
Motivation:
Relatively fast review and revision processes compared with other journals I submitted, but the second round took a bit longer than expected.
Motivation:
The reviewers did a great job of returning reviews quickly, but it took much longer for the AE to reach a decision at each round.
Motivation:
Good reviews, rapid feedback, constructive and critical. Will submit again here for another paper down the line, I am sure.
Motivation:
Excellent, thorough reviews and rapid decision time. Expensive journal but can recommend it for sure.
Motivation:
Trash journal. One reviewer had minor revisions recommended, the other major. Editor then took the liberty to reject it outright, without any helpful feedback, and then refused to provide any useful feedback when approached. Very slow process and ultimately a huge waste of time. Do not submit here.
Motivation:
Fairly quick review rounds with helpful and constructive reviews which contributed to improving my article. I was overall very satisfied with the process.
Motivation:
Review was timely and review comments were constructive. Editorial process seemed fair and impartial. I would have preferred an opportunity to address the review comments, rather than an outright rejection, as the review comments seemed like they could have been addressed.