Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
16.4 weeks
33.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
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 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."
"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 reports
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 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013