Reviews for "Economic Geography"

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
Economic Geography 15.0
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Meticulous review process with high quality, constructive review reports. Very clear and encouraging communication with the editor.
Economic Geography 9.5
weeks
9.5
weeks
n/a 4 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The journal should be applauded for offering (1) a fast review process, (2) useful editorial comments and (3) seemingly knowledgeable reviewers (3 out of 4 reviews were well-developed).

However, core arguments used to explain the rejection decision breathed an air of "discipline-related politics" rather than a focus on true shortcomings in terms of technical merit, craftsmanship and significance (Schwab, 1985). Surely, various other comments were wholly justified, however, the manuscript partly fell victim to an ongoing debate about the position of economic geography relative to related disciplines. In that respect, the manuscript turned out not to fit the journal's scope after all.

In sum, I strongly recommend authors to submit to this journal when their papers fit within a strictly spatial perspective on economic geography. You will get good quality reviews and fast decision-making. In contrast, manuscripts with a focus on relational economic geography are better submitted elsewhere.