Reviews for "International Migration Review"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
45.6 weeks
45.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
1
Drawn back
2022
Motivation: 10 months for one (1) peer review report with the offer to revise and re-submit. Withdrawn because of the painfully slow process.
24.7 weeks
57.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Accepted
2022
Motivation: IMR does thorough reviews and this manuscript was no exception. We're looking at a research note, and the reviews were rigorous. The length of what is a straightforward review process may be too much for some more junior colleagues where time (e.g. to graduation, to tenure) is critical.
25.4 weeks
25.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
4
Rejected
2022
5.7 weeks
31.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: We managed to satisfy the reviewers pretty quickly, but the editor was relentless in pushing us towards clearer language and making apparent the contribution to the literature more. This was painful, but we ended up with a much better manuscript.
26.4 weeks
53.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2017
Motivation: The process was extremely slow, but the manuscript was significantly improved by the review process.
n/a
n/a
66 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
Motivation: It took two month for the editorial review. On the other hand, the comments by the editor and associate editor are extensive, constructive, and will help making the paper better. External reviews are not always up to the standard of the editorial reviews we got.
n/a
n/a
77 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
32.3 weeks
54.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: The process was slow, the reviews were detailed and fair, and the outcome is a much better paper.
39.1 weeks
39.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
Rejected
2012
Motivation: In terms of argumentation provided the journal scored a good mark. The conclusion made, namely to not ask for a revision for new submission but reject the manuscript, stood at certain odds with the substantive, mostly constructive and valuable dialogue entered with the manuscript by the reviewers, with various pointers for direct improvement. Finally the time, at 9 months, taken for the review may be considered rather lengthy, even if recognition is given to the difficulties many journals face with securing relevant reviewers. Hence an overall mark of 6.