Reviews for "Energy Policy"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 49.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
8.7
weeks
18.3
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2018
Motivation: The first round of reviews was mixed: one favourable and one against. The one against was poorly written and misunderstood the nature of the paper showing to be a rushed work.
We answered explaining point by point why we did what.
The second round of reviews discounted our answers and the new reviewers sidelined with the first negative reviewer without taking in account our responses to the first negative reviewer. The favourable reviewer had been removed by the reviewing team while the first negative reviewer was retained in the reviewing team. It was a lengthy and unfair process, there was no engagement on part of the reviewers or the editors with our answers to first round negative reviewer's criticism.
28.7
weeks
31.6
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Review reports were detailed and communication was clear. However, I did wait a long time for peer review feedback, and I only heard back after reminding the editor.
9.7
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: Thorough peer review comments received from both reviewers. Publication process was efficient.
17.0
weeks
17.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back 2016
13.0
weeks
16.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2012
6.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
13.0
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
11.3
weeks
15.1
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2015
41.6
weeks
45.6
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: An extraordinarily long review process. 42 weeks for the first review period of just 2 reviewers to be completed - unacceptably long. I contacted the editors multiple times during this process, and each time I was given very little information as to why the review was delayed. I'm hesitant to submit here again; however, I've reviewed for this journal and seen a very short turnaround, on the order of 12 weeks.
30.4
weeks
34.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Accepted 2011
3.4
weeks
3.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2014
26.0
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: The two (out of two) reviewers' comments were very helpful. They commented on few aspects that needed to be included to improve the paper. Although these changes were very demanding, however, the reviewers' were generous to reconsider the manuscript once these changes are incorporated, I was quite motivated by their comments and did the major revisions required. The editor of the journal was excellent too, in giving me the opportunity to do the major revisions and resubmit. I spent lot of hours in improving the manuscript and it was accepted after the major revisions were considered. I am very satisfied with the overall experience with this journal.