Reviews for "Assessment"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
16.4
weeks
33.7
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Unetical and bad practices: lack of respect for the reviewer who accepted our modified version. Here is his/her only comment:

Reviewer’s Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1.

1. The authors did well in addressing the reviewer's request for clarification and including a more recent and relevant discussion of the gaps in the literature. Further, the authors adequately addressed questions on statistical analyses and methodology.
n/a n/a 91.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: This is the reason given for immediate rejection of the manuscript:

"Although it is quite clear that a great deal of effort and thinking went into your study, unfortunately, I find that is (sic) not suitable for publication in Assessment."
11.4
weeks
38.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Many good points made in reviews that improved the manuscript, but the overall process took almost 2 years with 4 rounds of review. At the same time, the journal published other papers fairly quickly that clearly were not held to the same standard. Unevenness in the rigor of review and overly picky requirements by some reviewers/editors seems like a problem.
n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013