Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.9 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Journal is a good choice for papers around "sustainability in higher education" that are not good fits for other journals. Ours was a case study, and Journal was perfect for the interdisciplinary topic.
Positives: Peer reviewers were reasonable and seemed knowledgeable about the topic. Editors were fair and helpful throughout process. Journal has genuine peer review which is constructive. Publication policies (e.g., self archiving) are well done and ethical. Journal has reasonable expectations for novelty/impact; review is more about quality of the work.
Negatives: Inconsistent policies, especially with the web upload process vs. reviewer/editor comments. Some of editor response times were rather slow. Reviewer comments did not harm the manuscript but I don't think they improved it much either. Review comments were mostly about stuff like "add a literature review" and "add a conclusions section", which is more stylistic in my view.
Positives: Peer reviewers were reasonable and seemed knowledgeable about the topic. Editors were fair and helpful throughout process. Journal has genuine peer review which is constructive. Publication policies (e.g., self archiving) are well done and ethical. Journal has reasonable expectations for novelty/impact; review is more about quality of the work.
Negatives: Inconsistent policies, especially with the web upload process vs. reviewer/editor comments. Some of editor response times were rather slow. Reviewer comments did not harm the manuscript but I don't think they improved it much either. Review comments were mostly about stuff like "add a literature review" and "add a conclusions section", which is more stylistic in my view.