Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
15.6 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
2015
Motivation: The editor rejected the revised version of the paper based on the decision of the 2nd reviewer's point, which was completely based on the type of data used for the analysis and nothing else. The 2nd reviewer pointed out that they did not even bothered looking at the revisions due to the fact that the use of cross-sectional data cannot be used to disentangle hypotheses as proposed in the paper. The journal had already published several similar papers using cross-sectional data to draw upon similar theses/causal mechanisms - under the same editor. Further, if this were to be an issue, the editor should have desk rejected it not make it go through a one year review process and have such positions made clear in the "about the journal" section and or instructions to authors.
23.0 weeks
24.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The review process was handled very well by the editorial assistant. The first-round review took very long, but upon inquiry the EA quickly replied with some more information about the reason for the delay. Overall, the process went quite smoothly.