Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
6.0 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
It was my first time submitting a paper to a journal and I could not have been better.
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
One reviewer considered the paper "ready for publication", one asked for many clarifications, and one only submitted confidential comments to the editor. From the comments we got, the rejection is a bit surprising, but obviously we don't know what was in the confidential comments -- which doesn't help us improve the manuscript. That's not the journal's fault, though.
22.6 weeks
30.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
34.1 weeks
34.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2020
11.0 weeks
37.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
18.4 weeks
18.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
8.0 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Pretty good experience overall.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
One review was thorough and helpful.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
25.4 weeks
33.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
The reviews were of a high quality, after the reviews were received the communication with the journal was very constructive and the final decision was made relatively fast.
26.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were actually great (very appropriatly selected by the editor). They helped to improve the paper considerably. Also both editors give a lot of suggestions and comments in each round. Only drawback is the long period.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2010