Reviews for "Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: I received two reviews and further comments from the editor with critiques and suggestions about the general argument, various details in my piece, English infelicities, and general tone of the paper. All of them very helpful, good experience.
9.6
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: The overall review process for BASP was excellent. My submission was acknowledged right away and I was informed that the review process had begun. The review process itself was quick and the comments I received evidenced a careful critique by two reviewers with expert knowledge of the subject area. Their comments, plus a few from one of the editors, led to a significantly better resubmission that was ultimately accepted.
23.1
weeks
23.1
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: In terms of quality of the peer-review, BASP has proven to be the most rigorous journal in my publishing experience. For my lengthy analytical article, I was given two 4-page reports written by clearly the top two authorities in my field. (The reports were anonymous but the level of details into which these two scholars went when reviewing my piece clearly was clearly indicative of who was involved.) The reviewers exhibited clear understanding of the argument as well as the materials under analysis; they spotted numerous content errors and inaccuracies and made positive suggestions, all of which resulted in substantial improvements to the piece.