Reviews for "Construction Management and Economics"

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
Construction Management and Economics n/a n/a 14.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The manuscript was simply rejected. Thus rejecting for future submissions with revisions. Rejection is informed immediately without any delay.
Construction Management and Economics 7.6
n/a 2 3
Motivation: One review was of good quality, constructive and definitely improved the manuscript. The other review was extensive and perceived as aggressive and abusive with words being used like nonsensical, clumsy, incorrect, rudimentary, should not be accepted, too elementary, too vague. Some reviewers apparently lack sensitivity for what ever reasons I can only guess. I just want to mention that these types of reviews are unfair and hurt. In the end the editor handled this review process correctly but in my opinion the editor should have taken action earlier in the process, whether by editing this review before sending it our or in doubt of the quality of the manuscript, sending the manuscript to another reviewer.