Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
A desk reject is always disappointing, but the editor very clearly read the manuscript and provided a short paragraph of feedback as to why this decision was reached.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
One reviewer seemed positive, the other did not understand the methods and seemed not to understand that it was a research note (lots of comments on more literature, etc)
10.6 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
It seems we didn't explain well enough what is new in this paper...
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
It is unacceptable to receive two reviews that are shorter than 500 words and of poor quality. It is worrisome that a good journal such as BJPolS accepts such poor quality of reviewers.
So, the reviews were useless and did not even justify rejection, but the editor chose to reject the paper anyway.
So, the reviews were useless and did not even justify rejection, but the editor chose to reject the paper anyway.
18.7 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The editor acknowledged that it took longer than he thought was appropriate but that it was the reviewers fault (what else is new) and said he hoped it wouldn't put me off applying there in the future. The reviews had enough helpful parts in them that I am not displeased with having submitted it. Unfortunately, the 3rd review, which is what held up the entire process, didn't actually seem to read the paper properly (ie I don't see an interaction model, when they are clearly present in the tables).
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The paper was rejected because its topic did not fit the journal. This was a bit strange as I had reviewed a paper for the journal on the exact same topic.
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Reviewers had good comments
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
overall handling was good. the quality of the reviews was average.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015