Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: detailed explanation why the manuscript was not a fit for the journal
Motivation: Editor blindly followed the instructions of the second reviewer who made too generic comments on the quality of paper, while the first one found it ready to be published. The review of the second reviewer was not justified. I think that a third reviewer should have been called to evaluate the paper
Motivation: Unclear if the manuscript was sent out for external review - we received an email with a paragraph each of feedback from two 'Associate Editors', informing us that our paper failed to adequately engage with the journal's core debates. While we appreciated the speed in which the manuscript was processed, this is disappointingly slow if (as we suspect) the manuscript wasn't actually sent out for review.