Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
38.4 weeks
38.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
The reviewers demonstrated no subject expertise and no familiarity with contemporary methods such as pre-registering experiments. Most comments were arbitrary formatting preferences or unrelated opinions.
32.7 weeks
34.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2026
Motivation:
Extremely satisfied with the review process. The Editor-in-Chief was accessible and pleasant to interact with, and the Associate Editor was equally approachable and demonstrated a genuine interest in the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments, as well as those from the Associate Editor, reflected a strong level of engagement and rigor, and contributed substantially to improving the quality of the manuscript.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
The only drawback was the overall length of the process, which took almost a year, with the first round of review lasting about seven months. However, if this duration ensures such a thorough and high-quality review process, it can also be seen as a positive aspect.
26.3 weeks
45.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2024
Motivation:
The peer-review process was of high quality. The reviewers’ reports and suggestions were highly relevant and contributed significantly to improving the manuscript. The editor was approachable and responded to emails in a timely manner. The only drawback was the overall duration of the process, as it took over a year from submission to publication.
24.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
Long review process. Two reviews were around a paragraph with no engagement with the actual manuscript. One reviewer was constructive and helpful, but freely admitted to not understanding the basics of the quantitative methods despite providing critiques. Editor indicated agreeing with the reviewers despite the reviewers providing contradictory statements, such as one reviewer saying there was bad engagement with the literature and the other indicating that the literature review was easy to follow and comprehensive.
34.3 weeks
77.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Overall, review comments were constructive, and the handling of our manuscript was excellent. However, I think it would be great if the entire review timeline could be shortened.
34.7 weeks
65.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2012