Reviews for "Critical Studies on Terrorism"

Motivation: The first reviewer report was very constructive and positive, more of a minor revision than a major revision. The second report was arguably the worst I've ever read. I genuinely felt insulted that they sent it to me. This second reviewer recommended rejection, and the editor rejected the manuscript based on this very questionable piece of text. I see that the editor wasn't a fan of the text; otherwise it would have gone to a third reviewer. In this case, I would much rather have a desk rejection to avoid wasting four months.

The journal may be more critical compared to other terrorism journals, but I suggest not sending your work if it is truly outside the box.