Reviews for "Comparative Political Studies"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 60 days Drawn back 2020
n/a n/a 27.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2022
Motivation: Clear evidence of an editorial review, lack of space as the main reason, plus a sentence of feedback (which is more than what we get from most desk rejections)
n/a n/a 33.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: They say the article is interesting and well-crafted but too narrow. I do not fault their decision, but it strikes me as having taken too long to be communicated to me.
n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: Anonymous review by two members of the editorial board, received a paragraph of justification and suggestion of where to submit the paper next.
26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Slow, editor comments suggested cursory reading of reviewers.
21.1
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Hard to beat insufficient enthusiasm. The reviewers suggested ways to take the manuscript into different directions, but nothing wrong with it.
13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: One reviewer recommended acceptance, the other one was lukewarm but seems to have reviewed the paper in a real hurry.
11.7
weeks
11.7
weeks
n/a 1 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: decent reviews, overall duration acceptable