Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "Cognition"
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome | Year |
| Cognition | 13.6 weeks |
13.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2022 |
| Cognition | 7.1 weeks |
13.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2020 |
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||
| Cognition | n/a | n/a | 18.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) | 2019 |
| Cognition | 8.7 weeks |
17.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted | 2018 |
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||
| Cognition | 18.7 weeks |
42.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted | 2017 |
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||
| Cognition | 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 |
||||||||
| Cognition | 5.4 weeks |
5.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2015 |
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||
| Cognition | 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. | ||||||||