Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
The paper was rejected even though the comments by the reviewers could have been addressed. This has happened to many submissions to this journal. However, as I acted as a reviewer, I noticed that revise decision was made even in the presence of critical reports.
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
We received three reviews. Generally, all comments helped us to either improve our technical procedure or showed us which parts need more explanation. However, extensive questions and doubts by one of the reviewers about very basic agronomic and econometric processes showed us that the journal required to frame the paper for a very general non-agricultural and non-economic audience.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Timely handling for an economics journal. Both reviewers were extremely negative about the paper and it seemed that neither the reviewers nor the editor fully read our work. Resulting, the reviews were uninformative, very short and of low quality. Unfortunately, the process did not help to improve our work.
22.0 weeks
29.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
There was some slight delay in the first review round, only because one of the reviewers didn't submit the report. However, the review report I got was of great value to improve quality of the paper. The delay in publishing the paper after getting acceptance from the editor was bit disappointing (1 year), but possibly because many papers are in the queue.
n/a
n/a
24 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015