Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation:
Editorial reject. The article was deemed too specific and not contributing to a wide audience.
9.1 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Economics Letters used to be extremely slow. The current editorial team has really improved things.
n/a
n/a
149 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Fast and efficient.
60.8 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2011
Motivation:
the final review report did not touch the core issues, rather it used the fitness with the journal as the reason for rejection. But if so, it should not have taken 14 months to decide whether the paper fitted the journal or not.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
Motivation:
Fast reply and constructive comment from editor.
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The referee recommended a minor revision, but an anonymous associate editor recommended rejection without providing a reason. The editor followed that recommendation without even looking into the report