Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
No complaints at all with this journal. Reasonably fast review time and the paper improved in light of the referees' comments. Commentary was constructive, not pedantic. No one even asked me to write out, by hand, how I dummy coded variables (protip y'all: it's 2017...I mean, it's after 1994 and all...so...the software does that..).
Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
Very fast post-acceptance production phase as well--paper was online in about a week after official acceptance. Good copy-editing; the few changes recommended enhanced the text.
A journal ultimately reflects its editor, so Dr. Tight deserves kudos.
3.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Very efficient journal. Clear communications. Peer review comments were brief and added value.
4.3 weeks
4.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
This was the second time I submitted a paper to this journal and, as the first time, I was impressed with the efficiency of the review process.
2.9 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Good quality reviews; the paper improved after the suggested changes; extremely efficient editorial processing
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
21.7 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Drawn back
2013
Motivation:
AEHE generally publishes some very good papers, which motivated me to consider publishing there. I was quite dismayed with the quality of the peer reviewers, though. One of the reviewers claimed to be subject matter experts in the area, but his/her comments indicated otherwise. When I presented my evidence to the editor that one of the reviewers was seemingly unqualified, the editor forwarded my comments to the anonymous reviewer who ultimately admitted that s/he didn't know anything about the subject or methodology. The editor offered to send the paper to another reviewer, but many months of valuable time had already been wasted so I opted to pull the manuscript and submit it to a journal that had a Call for Papers and promised a very quick decision.