Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: The whole process took exceedingly long (nearly 9 months in the first round and > 6 months to process the revision) and in the meantime it was near impossible to get updates about what was happening behind the scenes. For the initial review an editor was found but they withdrew at some point, but we were never made aware of this happening. Most of my requests to the administration/editor in chief/handling editor went unanswered. Few months after the revision was submitted the handling editor (wrongly) seemed to be under the impression that we had not written a response letter to the reviewers, which I found very concerning. The final rejection was based on an entirely new reviewer (only one..). Overall the worst experience I have ever had at a journal due to 1) extreme slowness 2) no communication whatsoever and 3) final rejection seemed very much at odds with the opinion the editor had after the first round of reviews. Would not recommend anyone to submit to this journal.
Motivation: Reviews were (relatively) helpful, and the outcome being a rejection was not entirely surprising given the reviews. However, the journal took way too long to share these reviews after they had come in. It took months "Awaiting decision" and some email exchanges with the editors to get a reply. Nevertheless, the editorial staff was helpful and approachable.
Motivation: The reviewers were psychologists, although the paper was phenomenology. This almost determines rejection.