Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No response about a first decision after half a year, interaction with editorial board friendly, apologetic, yet not result- or solution-driven. Seemed to have resulted in a complete halt of progress on their side, thus we ended the endeavour from our side. Would not consider for submission again.
Motivation:
It would have been better if reasons for immediate rejection were provided.
Motivation:
Extremely bad editorial handling of the paper. It should not take 8 months to desk-reject a paper. Totally unacceptable.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 176.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation:
Editorial office had apparently not yet sent the paper to reviewers and was just sitting on it.
Motivation:
One month for a desk rejection with a boiler-plate justification is a bit long.
Motivation:
Over 2 months for a desk rejection, this seems slow.
Motivation:
Desk rejection, but done very quickly, so absolutely no time lost in the process.
Motivation:
One of the referee reports was 3 lines long. The other review was much more detailed and engaging.
Motivation:
This was slow for a desk rejection.
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
Very slow desk rejection
Motivation:
The first reviewer was not very respectful and gave practically no feedback, he just rejected it.
The second reviewer was a little more coherent in giving his reasons, but even so we would have appreciated to know more in detail the points of improvement of the article.
The second reviewer was a little more coherent in giving his reasons, but even so we would have appreciated to know more in detail the points of improvement of the article.
Motivation:
They provided a reason why the paper was not a good fit for the journal, and provided a pointer in which direction to try.
Motivation:
Paper was too descriptive.
Motivation:
We submitted a paper that was too much focused on the analysis of survey data, as the editors nicely pointed out.
Motivation:
Getting rejected after R&R is always painful. This one was particularly painful as one of the reviewers simply stated that the changes were "not sufficient", and the other one was annoyed because they could not find the response letter in the system (in their perspective it "was not provided"). I understand that the editor does not want to decide against two negative evaluations, but it does feel like wasted time and effort for everyone this way.
Motivation:
$125 submission fee for a boilerplate rejection, no feedback.
Motivation:
Four short paragraphs of feedback on the manuscript to justify the decision!
Motivation:
Desk rejection, but with plenty of useful feedback that allowed us to move on with this article!
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.