Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
19.4 weeks
26.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2021
27.1 weeks
27.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
The process was too slow with some issues. First, I submitted a paper according to the guide for authors, and it was returned to me because of a detail that was in line with the journal’s guide for authors. I was told to do something else, which conflicts with the guide for authors of the very same journal, bizarre. After pointing out that issue, I was ignored. So I had no choice but to resubmit the paper conflicting with their rules. Then, the paper was listed “With Editor” for about a month before being sent out for review. After a few months, the paper was still under review. So I emailed them, and I was told that an insufficient number of reviewers accepted the editor’s invitation, and they will invite additional reviewers. It turns out that my submission remained in limbo, so I had to remind them to do that, and if I didn’t write an email to them, who knows for how long my submission would have been unnoticed. 4-5 months after the submission, I sent another email to ask about the status. Same issue: the paper does not have enough reviewers, so they will invite additional ones. Again, I had to push them to do their job. After offering suggestions for additional reviewers, I got a curt response from the journal manager that’s not required. More than a month later, the paper was still under review. Finally, two reviews arrived. One review was excellent, with very valid points, which are much appreciated. The other one was bogus, very generic, and with weird comments. The only reason why I gave a rating of 2 instead of 1 is because of the quality of one review report and the prompt responses by the editor.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
11.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
After 5 days of being listed as "With Editor" the status changed to "Under Review." 11 weeks later a very curt rejection letter arrived with no reason for rejection or reviewer comments attached. When I asked the editor for comments he said the manuscript was desk rejected so did not require a reason and had no reviewer comments. The manuscript was a replication of an article published in Cities that produced qualitatively different results. I have no faith in the editorial office at Cities. Elsevier said they would contact me regarding the complaint I filed but have heard nothing. Gatekeeping at its finest.
30.4 weeks
61.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The review process was a little bit too long. However, communication with the editor was perfect.