Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
7.1 weeks
7.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Even though my manuscript was rejected, I was impressed by the speedy and thorough review process.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
On the positive side, the editorial manager system of the journal is excellent. However, if some of the reviewers are either not familiar with the literature on the given topic or they are busy promoting their own related work, the chances of a real scientific discussion are severely limited.
64.1 weeks
72.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
This is a new Fair Open Access Journal, and it is clear that the editors are putting a lot of effort into this journal. I had a little picky Reviewer who insisted that I should keep changing small details, but s/he was finally satisfied after a few rounds of revision.
12.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The decision seemed really at odds with the content of the reviews. There were some serious flaws in the paper, to be sure, but the suggestion was basically to rewrite it about a different topic, with new data that is not feasible to collect. So, it was a pretty unhelpful rejection.
10.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
The reviews were pretty okay, but some comments were pretty inane. Point being, now that the paper was rejected, they won't help us actually improve it to send it elsewhere.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Three high quality review reports which arrived in less than 3 months time (pretty good for linguistics and especially during summer). I learned a lot from the reviews and the papre improved a lot. The article was accepted on the same day as it was resubmitted. Very pleasant interaction with editorial staff. Smooth handling.