Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
One reviewer chastises us for not citing just under 40(!) additional publications. We barely made the word limit without citing them. We are glad to have the cites but its not realistic to add that many in this paper.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
Reviewer asked if we ran panel-corrected models despite the fact that we use cross-national models, not time-series.
The same reviewer writes, 'This time span is very short; without variation, the use of several years seems to serve only to inflate the N'. Again, the data are cross-national (because of the lack of variation).
Same reviewer asks, 'where are the controls?' We have seven controls.
Same reviewer stated we need to say more about variable choice and operationalization despite the fact we include a seven-page table in the appendix with details on the sources and operationalization.
Reviewer asks 'why is this democracy variable used? It is not a common one, and the choice seems arbitrary. Is it robust?' We use three measures of democracy and each is commonly used in the literature.
10.4 weeks
10.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
One of the reviewers seemed to have little or no understanding of the modelling, did not read, or simply did not understand the statistical models. The other reviewer wanted citations to lines and lines of references to datasets and articles, many of which we had explicitly rejected or moved on from. If we had cited every single one of these articles, it would have added thousands of words. The review was simply a gatekeeping/genuflection exercise to 'authority', not an attempt at social science.
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
I was told there were 4 reviewers. Only one wrote more than a phrase, but he had the thesis backward, so I don’t know how closely he read it. Another wrote only “same as comments to editor” which was not provided to me even on request. Nothing was said about how to change or improve the article.
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The reviewer sided with the reviewer who voted rejection, whose feedback was cruel and not aimed at helping our paper, and ignored the review that called the paper "a valuable contribution."
38.9 weeks
51.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013