Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Review from an economist who admitted s/he was not familiar with the philosophical issues. His/her only real substantive complaint boiled down to my paper not looking 'formal enough'. Review was full of misunderstandings about the philosophical motivation of my project (in fact, the reviewer at one point claimed my thesis was 'p', when it in fact was 'not p'). I really don't know why an editor would take such a review seriously. I won't be submitting to this journal for a long time.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
Two referee comments within a reasonable time frame. Yet the referees were obviously both economists who (I) didn't competently engage at all with the philosophical substance of my paper and (ii) were hyper-critical of the experimental component of my paper (it was an X-phi paper). I've since been able to place this paper in a great journal, but be warned, if you're trying to publish a piece that involves formalism or an experiment the editors seem to hold you to the same standard practicing economists publishing in top econ journals are held too. This is ridiculous, as I've read lots of very bad philosophical pieces written by economists in this journal. Instead, I'd suggest you publish in PPE, Philosophy of Science or BJPS. They find reasonable reviewers for formal work.