Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
The review by the editor was very kind in explaining that the paper was interesting but not a good fit for the journal and to save time was not sent out to reviewers.
9.9 weeks
19.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The editor did a good job handling the manuscript. However, the process takes too long. Five different reviewers review the article (with very different point of views)
9.7 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
My coauthor and I felt stuck with this project so we sent it off to get some critical feedback. I was worried about a desk reject but the editor sent it out to external reviewers. There were two reviewers who suggested a denial and the other two suggested an R&R with major revisions. The feedback included suggestions for additional data and clarifying theoretical frameworks. The editor was an expert on the topic I was writing on, so he gave us a thorough feedback in his letter too. He suggested a denial, but I was not surprised by the result.
14.4 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The process was pretty fast. However, the sent work received an unconventional number of revisions. Specifically, 4 reviewers did the work. Their decisions were: "minor revision", two "major revision" and one "reject". The editor decided to reject the paper without the possibility to dialogue with the reviewers or address any problem of the paper.
26.0 weeks
47.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018