Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
Short feedback, but clearly from an editor who read the paper carefully.
15.0 weeks
20.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
Turnaround time for reviews was much faster than expected, especially given the extremely high quality of the reviews from scholars who were clearly extremely knowledgeable in the field.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
The editors were also extremely helpful and provided much guidance, they even edited the paper themselves.
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Lightning fast review times! A very smooth process. However the two reviewers were within a single subfield, which related to our topic but was not the central subfield it was speaking to.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Merely "interesting" and not "ground-breaking" apparently.
9.3 weeks
9.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to reviewers very quickly. Although the reviews were mixed, with one proposing minor revisions and others raising issues that could be handled within a revision, the editors explained their rejection well and even proposed a prioritization of the reviewers' comments and suggested outlets to sent the manuscript next to.
17.7 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Three reviewers indicating excitement about the results and some suggestions for improvement didn't cut it this time.
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
a reject and resubmit because the editors saw the potential but wanted a broader (=longer) engagement with the literature
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Review process was quick and the reviews were of good quality, very methodical. Reviews were very positive so rejection was surprising, but the editor justified it as lack of theoretical development.
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with appropriate justification. Editors at ASR even took the time to comment on the paper, and suggested alternative publications channels.
5.0 weeks
5.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Fast review procedure, which is much appreciated
15.1 weeks
15.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
Although it was immediately rejected, the editor explained extensively why it was rejected and gave some useful comments on the script.
23.7 weeks
54.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2012