Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
36.0 weeks
36.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
I think it is better if IJHRM keep the first review response within 6 months (at maximum) and invite more reviewers for collective viewpoints from various perspectives with the expertise in field. It is normal that a high ranking journal receives 3 or 4 reviewers for a paper. The longer review process makes us tired and costs us the opportunity to pursue publication with other journal.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Introduction, literature, and theoretical contributions are insufficient.
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Limited theoretical contributions
n/a
n/a
22 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
Some perfunctory words
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
We received two reviews: The first one did not provide any information other than the fact that the reviewer advocates of a different research tradition to the approach used in the paper. Weirdly the second reviewer had no idea about the methodological paradigm and method adopted in the study. - The journal claims to be open to various methodological and theoretical approaches. If this is the case, they need to assign manuscripts to competent reviewers. This review process was a waste of time for everyone involved.
54.9 weeks
88.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The first round of reviews took more than 12 months. After the twelve months, we received two reviews: one was a one-sentence review, the other one was one paragraph touching on issues remotely related to the topic of the manuscript. We resubmitted the manuscript and had to wait another six months for the next review: A new reviewer whose review consisted of half a page of editorial and style advice, again nothing regarding the substance of our manuscript.
One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
One rater on this page attributes the long waiting times to the death of a previous editor (which to my knowledge was in 2012 or 2013) and new editors taking over, but note that we submitted our manuscript years after that period.
16.0 weeks
18.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2011
42.9 weeks
68.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
The very lenghthy process made it quite frustrating as well that some of the reviewers were not familiar with estimation techniques used and initially rejected the paper. However, the end result may well be that the paper has become a paper which is attuned tot the needs and tastes of the HR field.
28.9 weeks
72.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
28.9 weeks
70.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
35.0 weeks
105.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2011
Motivation:
It took about 3 years and 3 rounds of review. I guess reviewers were different in each time. After all paper get rejected. No specific argument was made at the end. Although death of the editor was responsible for part of the delay but anyway handling the issue of my paper was not fair (as I perceive it).