Reviews for "Food Policy"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome
Food Policy 28.2
n/a 1 2
(very bad)
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.
Food Policy 6.4
n/a 2 4
(very good)
Food Policy n/a n/a 22.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Food Policy n/a n/a 2.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The rejection was softened by the comment that the editor desk rejects about 80% of the submissions assigned to them.
Food Policy n/a n/a 11.0
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The review process is relatively fast. The editor was confident to mention that s/he desk rejects 80% of the manuscripts submitted.