Reviews for "Electoral Studies"

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
Electoral Studies 15.9
weeks
15.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Relatively slow review process. After the required reviews were completed, the paper landed on the editor's desk and stayed there for a month. Reviews were of OK quality, but most points regarding methodology were false as they argued in exactly the opposite direction that the paper did.
Electoral Studies 15.0
weeks
15.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers pointed out important limitations that we did not emphasize as much as they would have liked. Since we cannot address them with the data used (as discussed in the paper), it's only fair for the editor to reject the paper. The whole process was a bit slow, though...
Electoral Studies n/a n/a 9.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Electoral Studies n/a n/a 21.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: "it would not be competitive in the review process "
Electoral Studies n/a n/a 8.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast desk reject. Puzzing reason for desk reject.
Electoral Studies 13.0
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: Two positive reviews (one major R&R and one minor R&R). Editor still rejected paper with one sentence justification.
Editor apparently did not like the manuscript. A desk reject would have saved time for all involved parties...
Electoral Studies 17.9
weeks
17.9
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected
Motivation: Average handling of manuscript. The reasons for the rejection are stated clearly enough.