Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
18.6 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
The reviewer criticized the paper for not addressing the topic in a manner that aligned with their preferred conceptualization of the research scope. Although my co-author and I clearly demonstrated how the paper's focus aligned with the existing body of literature, this argument was not acknowledged. The editor rendered a decisive judgment without providing substantive justification for why the paper was deemed unsuitable. The decision was terse and appeared final, requiring acceptance solely on the basis of editorial authority. No meaningful consideration was given to the paper’s intended contribution or to its consistency with prior research.
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Comments from the editor is that the research topic is interesting but the research objectives of the papers need to be redeveloped. The editor advises to redevelop and resubmit the paper. We are given 6-12 months to resubmit
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The feedback was polite. The editor provided suggestions on where to send the manuscript. The single review consisted of two paragraphs.