Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
Motivation:
Somewhat long for a desk reject. Although reasonable given the current policy of having at least two editors review every paper (both must agree with the decision). The editors were kind and, unexpectedly, provided me with thoughtful feedback on the manuscript.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
One reviewer suggetsed conditional accept, one R&R, and one did not like the quantiative approach and suggested that this should have been a qualitative paper and hence rejected it. Very bad handling by the editors.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
Clean desk reject, got one sentence of feedback how we might improve the manuscript.
14.3 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Decision was rapid and reviews were helpful in revising.
15.6 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Process was not very slow (review period included Holiday season). The editorial assistants were picky with regression table styles but everything else was smooth. Reviewer quality was high.
5.4 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
A top notch empirical contribution, but not enough theoretical contribution, apparently not enough for this journal. Reviews are helpful.
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
From the perspective of the author, an average review. The reviews were all very detailed. Overall, failed to enthuse the reviewers.
n/a
n/a
20 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
13.0 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Two reviewers suggested publication, one reviewer essentially ignored that we've addressed all his/her concerns.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
16.4 weeks
16.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017