Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
28.2 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
It took this journal 11 months and two rounds of review to reach the conclusion that my article should be rejected. In the first round the managing editor conducted the review and suggested revisions. I painstakingly addressed her reviews which were decent. In the second round the editor found a new reviewer and their review was really terrible. It was very lazy and not did not seems fair at all - it made sweeping comments with no justification. It also attacked the research design which is something fundamental that obviously remained unchanged. The editor should never have sent the paper out for review and made us go through 11 months if there was a design flaw. This is my second terrible experience with this journal and I will definitely never submit there and will actively discourage any of my students and colleagues from submitting there.
6.4 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation:
The rejection was softened by the comment that the editor desk rejects about 80% of the submissions assigned to them.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.