Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.3 weeks
75.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Reviews were mostly excellent. However, the review process stalled for a long time without explanation. After six months of inaction I contacted the associate editor dealing with my manuscript, who did not reply to repeated emails over the following six months. At that point I contacted the editors and the situation was resolved rapidly.
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Two reviewers were negative so they did not wait for the third to make things quicker. Reviewers were harsh but fair and all was done relatively quickly.
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Standard handling, based on two reviewers who were not excited about the manuscript and did not find the evidence compelling enough, the editor decided not to wait for a third reviewer.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Data were too old; but with a changing media landscape I guess this is not entirely unreasonable.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Contribution is mostly empirical, not enough theoretical.
17.3 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Only two reviews received, even though a third reviewer accepted initially (who did not submit a review).
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
4 months in total is a rather long handling process.
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The review process was fast. It took only one day before we knew that we were under review. The quality of the reviews was ok. One had good ideas about how we could improve our manuscript, the other did not seem to have read the manuscript that well, based on the review it gave.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Fast review process, high quality reviews, and friendly correspondence with the editor!
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
Desk rejection, but very fast (1 day) and with reasons clearly stated and a range of alternative outlets suggested.