Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
17.9 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The first reviewers comments was clear and understandable. However, the second reviewers comments does not relate to my paper at all. As my paper used secondary data, while all his comments related to primary data. Reviewers 2 has not bothered to read the paper and just copy-paste a comment from somewhere, which does not related to the paper at all. Overall poor job by the editor, who should at least review the paper to see whether comments are on merit or not
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
There was a vague opinion about the paper. It showed they even did not read the manuscript thoroughly. we think the reason of rejection was something that we already explained in the manuscript.
Major reasons for the rejection were stated as the lack of proper theoretical basis of the paper, vague scope (what the paper was trying to say) and the unclear contribution. At the same time, the respected reviewers stated that important studies that were relevant to the field were not consulted with. For us this reasoning was a bit unclear, considering that, as mentioned in the reasons for rejection, the scope of the paper was vague.
Major reasons for the rejection were stated as the lack of proper theoretical basis of the paper, vague scope (what the paper was trying to say) and the unclear contribution. At the same time, the respected reviewers stated that important studies that were relevant to the field were not consulted with. For us this reasoning was a bit unclear, considering that, as mentioned in the reasons for rejection, the scope of the paper was vague.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The reason for rejection was very vague and indicated that the paper had not been read thoroughly.