Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
65.1 weeks
65.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
2022
Motivation: Biased judgement on our adoption of theoretical lens and methodology. Other parts of the comments just consist of very generic challenges on research motivation (which we have justified the motivation quite well already). No recommendations were made for improving the manuscript.

And more importantly, I was kept waiting for more than a year. EIC did apologize when we asked for progresses in the mean time. But these apologies were only cold empathy, with unfair reviews accompanied.
9.9 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
2019
Motivation: Comments are fair but I wish the reviewer can be more constructive by offering more specific comments.
17.9 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Although the decision was not what we wanted, the review process was quite high quality. The reviewers and AE were quite knowledgeable on the topic. Although we had a philosophical divergence with one of the reviewers, the AE supported us on that point and so did not let that be a deciding factor. The reviews were received in average time for journals in our field. Considering that the eventual decision was a rejection, I'm glad it did not drag for more than two rounds--the journal gave us a fair attempt to try to retell our story. Overall, I consider this a good-quality process for a rejection outcome.
17.3 weeks
26.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2015