Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation: It appears that this was "out of scope", nothing much to argue with that, and we can move on to a different journal. However, before they could desk reject us, they insisted on using the journal template to the letter, which is an utter waste of time.
8.0 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Managed to excite the reviewers, but they wanted more details on the models and hypotheses = rejected.
20.3 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The reviewers offered precise comments, and suggested many changes to the paper.
12.9 weeks
18.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Drawn back
2016
Motivation: The reviews we got were very detailed - partly, criticism was warranted, but one reviewer tried to change the scope of the paper from a theoretical framework to an empirical study, which was the reason we finally withdrew the manuscript. After receiving the first review, we asked a question concerning the reviewer's suggestions to the editors via e-mail, which was answered as late as two months later (and after several inquiries from our part).
15.3 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Very fast ad professional review