Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
33.4 weeks
33.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
For a conceptual model deriving propositions, I received two reviews. One reviewer would have accepted to revise the manuscript, but the other rejeced it, basically with the argument that the model was too speculative and there are not enough theoretical or empirical studies supporting the propositions. When a new model is measured by these standards, only models that confirm existing knowledge (and develop porpositions out of empirical evidence?) are accepted. How can scientific progress be possible in this way? The editor followed the opinion of this reviewer and rejected it after one round. In total, this frustrating process took 33(!) weeks.
19.1 weeks
30.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The review comments were not constructive and overly focused on theory, not the method of the study.
15.4 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
8.4 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
As authors we made a major effort addressing all comments to satisfaction and, as recommended, had an external expert review the manuscript before resubmission. This journal has policy to give authors only one round of revision. In case a (conditional) accept is not reached within that time frame, the editor will reject. In my view, a very fair and good policy.
In case of our paper, one reviewer was satisfied and recommended an accept. However, the other reviewer introduced various new comments that actually pertained to aspects of the manuscript that had not changed relative to the originally submitted version. Hence, this reviewer had withheld comments (probably without any wrong intentions) thereby rendering us unable to anticipate/handle them in the only round of revision that the journal offers. Hence, his/her recommendation to the editor was another revision (albeit that all suggestions were easy fixes).
The editor did not take this into account in decision-making and because one reviewer suggested a revision the paper was rejected.
In case of our paper, one reviewer was satisfied and recommended an accept. However, the other reviewer introduced various new comments that actually pertained to aspects of the manuscript that had not changed relative to the originally submitted version. Hence, this reviewer had withheld comments (probably without any wrong intentions) thereby rendering us unable to anticipate/handle them in the only round of revision that the journal offers. Hence, his/her recommendation to the editor was another revision (albeit that all suggestions were easy fixes).
The editor did not take this into account in decision-making and because one reviewer suggested a revision the paper was rejected.