Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
69.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
In September of 2017, I sent a follow-up email and was provided the following response: "My apologies for the delay—we’ve been dealing with editorial changes and that has delayed responses to some articles. We have one review and were waiting for another review to come in, but that hasn’t happened yet. I have been working through the back log and can commit to getting back to you in detail before. . ."
A month later, I received the following: "After careful review of the document, we feel that we cannot publish the article, in large part due to a mismatch in scope and focus stemming from the constrained data sample . . .". It took 70 weeks for that kind of a response. I admit the study focused on a very specific aspect of education, but there is no data available (or very, very limited) concerning the topic of study.
Seems to me, the journal could have notified me of the above at an earlier time. If the article was not publishable by the journal, why even send it out for review?
A month later, I received the following: "After careful review of the document, we feel that we cannot publish the article, in large part due to a mismatch in scope and focus stemming from the constrained data sample . . .". It took 70 weeks for that kind of a response. I admit the study focused on a very specific aspect of education, but there is no data available (or very, very limited) concerning the topic of study.
Seems to me, the journal could have notified me of the above at an earlier time. If the article was not publishable by the journal, why even send it out for review?