Reviews for "Cognition"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: Manuscript was desk-rejected without any further comment, which is unfortunate because it would have been good to at least know whether the problem was the fit, the breadth of the paper, or something else. After all (also taking experiences with other submissions), it appears to be a lottery on whether a paper gets a chance at the journal.
13.6
weeks
13.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2022
7.1
weeks
13.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2020
29.3
weeks
40.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Two of the initial reviews were excellent; the third was very cursory/generic. First round of reviews were extremely slow (~7 months) and I had to email to push things forward. The editor was clear, decisive, and fast after the initial slowness.
n/a n/a 18.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
8.7
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
13.6
weeks
17.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: The first review round took much too long for a tentative acceptance outcome.
13.1
weeks
13.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: My main criticism is that 3 months is a lot of time for a revision process (btw, my paper was quite short, only 3 figures), thus I expected at least a constructive criticism of the reviewers. Instead, one of the reviewers criticized the methodology without providing any advice or giving us any chance to justify the choice of our method. I believe this does not lead to a proper scientific discussion.
18.7
weeks
42.6
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2017
12.4
weeks
12.4
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Given that one reviewer was positive and the other recommended Reject, I believe the process could have benefited from a 3rd reviewer.
14.9
weeks
18.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: very insightful feedback on behalf of the reviewers
5.4
weeks
5.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2015
n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Motivation: Editor rejected manuscript based on a subjective opinion of methodological issues with study without consulting reviewers. I previously submitted the manuscript to another journal, and none of the reviewers had the issue on which the editor based his decision. Editor claimed that length of time to render decision was due to a missing associate editor.
21.7
weeks
47.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2010
Motivation: Rather long review process but I received excellent reviews that helped improving the manuscript substantially.