Reviews for "Higher Education Policy"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 2.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: The editor read rather carefully the manuscript and made several positive comments about it. Several, sound, reasons were given for the desk-reject, mainly linked to methodological concerns and some doubts regarding the innovative character of the findings. It is not common for editors to give that much attention to a paper that does not proceed to peer-review, so we are very grateful to the editor for his detailed and constructive feedback. Also, the very fast rejection (within 2 days) was much appreciated, since it allowed us to ressubmit the paper to a more suitable journal.
9.7
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: The 2 reviews were contradictory. Maybe in such cases the manuscript should go to a third reviewer rather than be rejected.
7.9
weeks
7.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Drawn back 2014
7.0
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Drawn back 2014
Motivation: Swift and professional handling, but reviewer's reports were quite confusing and the editor's decision to request a major revision of the paper was not considered an option. Outcome: submission to another journal.
10.0
weeks
10.4
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: The review process was fast and very transparent, taking only three months from the first submission until accepting the final version.