Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Generic desk rejection, giving no clear hint why they're not interested.
Motivation:
This is how I like desk rejects: Fast and with a justification. While we can always quibble whether the arguments put forward are justified, we can move forward with this manuscript.
Motivation:
Desk reject. In return for the submission fee, we get half a sentence to inform us that the paper is not enough of general interest.
Motivation:
The manuscript was initially submitted for a special issue in November 2023. After a significantly delayed review process, we received a major revision request in June 2024. Despite the own acknowledgment of “discrepant feedback” from guest editor Raina Lamade, we worked diligently to revise the manuscript across multiple rounds, ultimately reworking it into a brief report as proposed by the guest editor for acceptance, in full compliance with content requirements—even when those contradicted earlier editorial guidance.
In April 2025, manuscrit was rejected based on concerns that were already addressed—or in some cases, stem directly from changes we were explicitly instructed to make. We were told to minimize empirical content and emphasize theory, only to be criticized for lack of empirical grounding. We were asked to condense theoretical discussion, and then faulted for insufficient theory.
The rejection of this manuscript after 1.5 years of extensive good-faith engagement and multiple substantial revisions is disheartening and represents a serious failure of the editorial process.
In April 2025, manuscrit was rejected based on concerns that were already addressed—or in some cases, stem directly from changes we were explicitly instructed to make. We were told to minimize empirical content and emphasize theory, only to be criticized for lack of empirical grounding. We were asked to condense theoretical discussion, and then faulted for insufficient theory.
The rejection of this manuscript after 1.5 years of extensive good-faith engagement and multiple substantial revisions is disheartening and represents a serious failure of the editorial process.
Motivation:
Review was timely (well before the deadline) and the reviewers gave lengthy comments of varying quality. All of them made factual errors about the content of the paper, unfortunately. One reviewer seemed out in space. Overall though, the consensus was summarized well by the editor (all reviewers expressed concerns about the paper's lack of theoretical development for a general audience). I was pleased with the experience overall and would submit again with this editor.
Motivation:
Took 5 months for acceptance. After submitting the first revision, one reviewer who gave us negative feedback on the first submission, didn't accepted to review my revised article. So my editor invited more than 10 reviewers again, and at last, the third reviewer was positive for my paper. This was why my process was delayed. I think I emailed more than 4 times to inquire about the status of my paper. Though, the editor was kind.
Motivation:
The process was fast, reviews were detailed and had many suggestions, but were on the balance, and editors chose not to accept an R&R, not very interested in the subject.
Motivation:
Very interesting reviews and helpful recommendations. Editor is very involved.
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 was strongly in favour of the publication right away while Reviewer 2 insisted on the work being unsuitable, citing a lack of novelty. Given the broad public interest in the work (as evidenced via its pre-print), the editor supported the publication but, to acknowledge Reviewer 2's concerns, requested the reformatting of the article to a technical note.
Motivation:
The reviews were of high quality, and the process was fast.
Motivation:
Fast review, useful comments.
Motivation:
I did not receive review reports, but the article was handled efficiently.
Motivation:
Fast review, fast turnaround, dense review remarks which improved the paper.
Motivation:
Good reviews, and the editor overrode problematic reviews.
Motivation:
Very fast but efficient review. Good editorial recommendations.
Motivation:
The journal handled my manuscript efficiently. All reviewers agree to accept my manuscript after one round of revision.
Motivation:
Reviewer comments were sensible and helped improve the manuscript. Responsiveness of the editor was a tad on the slow side but nothing to complain about.
Motivation:
After two rounds of reviews, the editor finally told us the results were not novel enough. It would have saved everyone a whole lot of time to just desk reject from the beginning.
Motivation:
Getting the initial round of reviews was quite slow, but the editors and reviewers gave very helpful feedback. Acceptance process was quick.
Motivation:
At the time we sent the article, the journal was in the process of being transferred to another publisher, so we could not access their system to track the submission until the mail with the reviewers' comments arrived. Of the 3 reviewers, 2 did not make many comments. But overall, they were helpful in improving the final version of the article.
One negative point was their delay in the editing and layout stage, although in the end they also managed to publish the article in the number they indicated after accepting the final version.
One negative point was their delay in the editing and layout stage, although in the end they also managed to publish the article in the number they indicated after accepting the final version.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 5.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
The journal offered a prompt and transparent review process, enabling the manuscript to be refined effectively. It is advisable to submit a manuscript to this journal.
Motivation:
Two reviewers. First reviewer's comments were almost 2 pages long. I have a strong suspicion that they were generated by an AI because of the length of the review and the vagueness of a lot of the comments and the structure of the comments. Also a few of the comments referenced things that we did not mention anywhere in our paper. It's impossible to confirm if it was AI-generated but it's just a hunch based on the aforementioned reasons. The second reviewer's comments were very helpful and I think will improve our manuscript for when we resubmit again. Sad that the decision for rejection took nearly 3 months but oh well.
Motivation:
Although the article was rejected, the external reviewer's comments helped us to improve the article.
Motivation:
Review time was quick and review feedback quite helpful. Reviewers seemed to have required expertise, and were eager to help make the manuscript the best it could be. Communication with editor was fast and easy.