Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
33.9 weeks
33.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
A very long review process. I received a very strange report that contained an "amalgamation" of two reviews, as it was explained by the editor. It was impossible to judge whether one, two or three persons wrote the review report. The review report itself was very angry and provided no help. Non-transparent reviewing. I will not submit a new paper until the current editorial team will be changed by new editors.
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
Europe-Asia Studies was my worst experience in publication. I waited almost 8 months for reviewers'comments and the paper received rejection. Although one reviewer was fair and recommended further revision, the other two reviewers asked only for citing their works. Awful journal !
34.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The editors obviously did not read the paper but only relied upon external reports. One report completely ignored what I said the paper was about and based his comments on his own participation in conferences whose proceedings were not published. I said the paper was about commercialized agriculture, the reviewer wanted to talk about food subsistence. That said, the report said the paper was well-written and scholarly. The main shortcoming was that I did not take account of his own work and point of view (which was unpublished). The second reviewer's comments were completely out of touch with reality and made no sense. I previously had published a dozen or so articles in this journal since 1992, but the editor and perhaps editorial board have changed recently.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 668.8 days
Drawn back
2011
Motivation:
After I submitted the paper I sent 6 e-mails (one every 4 months) to understand what is going on. The replies to my e-mails provided contradictory information: one said that a decision will be reached soon and three months later the e-mail said that they are still waiting for a reviewer,
43.4 weeks
43.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
Lengthy reviewing time.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.
One of the referees simply said that the manuscript did not add to the literature without no further justifications or comments. The second referee was constructive, with a long and well written report suggesting several modifications.