All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The submission of the paper was handled in a very efficient way by the editor.
The overall process of review was quick and constructive.
Reviewers' comments denoted a high knowledge of the subject and they certainly improved the manuscript.

Motivation: The whole process is quite fast. However, the comments from one reviewer were really poor technically and not constructive. The Editor also asked to add more references to provide a wider state of the art review.

Motivation: The editor was very efficient in handling the submission of the paper. The quality of the reviewers' reports was mixed: one was very constructive and detailed while the other was more superficial.

Motivation: The review process didn't take long time and I found it helpful that the editor shared with me the reviewer's report in its entirety. The reviewer had some helpful suggestions (some not) and caught some errors. The copy-editing seemed of very basic kind (if any).

Motivation: When I first sent the article, I received helpful preliminary feedback from the journal editor, but for some reason my article was not then forwarded to the editorial board for review. I only found out about this 8 months later when I enquired the editor about the matter. I received due apology and the subsequent review process was relatively swift and, as ever, courteous.

Motivation: The review process went smoothly and the referee report was very helpful and encouraging, but the procees took a very long time.

Motivation: The reviewers were not expert in the field of the paper and their comments were meaningless and some of them were theoritically incorrect. Generally, the reviwers' comments did not contain helpful information and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

Motivation: At the time of writing the paper was tailored to the scope and interests of Post-Communist Economies so it was kind of a shock to read the editor's decision about desk rejection.The justification was that it was not interesting to their readers.

Motivation: The internal editorial screening process was very quick and efficient. The manuscript was rejected but we have no complaint.

Motivation: The overall review reports were excellent in terms of their quality. Particularly, one reviewer's comments were very specific and constructive, so they contributed to the improvement of the manuscript significantly. However, other reviewers provided us with some unspecific, generic comments and suggestions. The overall editorial process was very smooth although it was not that quick.

Motivation: In the overall, the editorial office was responsive and friendly. However, the (associate) editors processed our manuscript very slowly. In particular, they have not made a decision even all review reports were submitted to them; I had contact the editorial office regularly to make updates.

Motivation: I was deeply impressed by how quickly and smoothly this was handled. The reviews were extremely rigorous, and while they required a huge reworking of the paper to address, they were still very encouraging. The editors were very transparent and prompt in communications, and said that the revision would go to the Associate Editor, who would either approve it or send it back to the reviewers; I appreciated this level of communication about the process. The time between acceptance and assignment to a volume for publication was shorter than I would have expected.

Motivation: The reviews were fair and the handling of the manuscript by the editor(s) also fair and professional. But the long time that this process took was surprising given my previous experiences with this journal, and this was not only due to slow reviewers – from what i could read in the online submission system it took over a month before the manuscript was even sent out to reviewers. This was a bit disappointing, but perhaps understandable: I can only guess that a significantly increased volume of manuscripts submitted to this journal has slowed down the review process. The journal continues to be a role model in handling of manuscripts and quality of reviewers, but the time lag has lowered its esteem in my view.

Motivation: Very fast review and publication process with a good level commentaries on review

Motivation: The only main concern in the whole reviewing process was the time. It took a very long time to obtain the first reviewers comments, although from the comments we understand why. One of the reviewer was not fitted for this and only criticized on how it was premature to publish. The second reviewer and the editorial office performed valuable critics and allowed us to further improve the manuscript. The second revision was rather fast (16.1 weeks because we only submitted the revision after summer holidays) and was promptly accepted in two days. When errors occurred in the submission process, the notifications from the editorial office were prompt and eased the whole process.

Motivation: The process was simple, but only one of the reviews provided a full review with explicit recommendations for improvement. Fortunately the associated editor provided useful feedback.

There were minor amendments required by the editorial office that delayed acceptance by a month in each instance, with the requirements on one occasion having already been dealt with previously. Amendments included confirming that a map was original and altering an ethics statement- which could have been handled quickly.