Reviews for "Journal of Behavioral Decision Making"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2021
Motivation: The editor wrongly stated that relevant information was not provided.
The editor claimed that raw data and materials were not made available, although an osf repository where these data could be downloaded was linked in the submission mail and the article itself.
The editor also asked us to provide descriptive data analyses which would not have been suitable for the type of data in our studies.
6.9
weeks
22.7
weeks
n/a 4 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: 4 reviews were unusual. But the editor gave a fair decision, I thought.
n/a n/a 0.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
30.4
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: The editor apparently "lost sight" of the manuscript. We asked about its status after 5 months, at which point he told us he had given up on finding a second reviewer but would be making a last effort towards this aim. Two months later, we received referee reports advising rejection. The first report focus on the organization of the paper sums up to saying "this is not the way we do it in behavioral sciences" and the second sums up to saying "I do not understand what is a mixed logit model". Both reviewers were dogmatic in their rejection, one saying that the question we dealt with was not the traditional way to look at the specific phenomenon we investigated, the other suggesting he did not trust our "sophisticated econometrics".
5.7
weeks
5.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Review process was very fast. Critical points of the referees were understood and summarized, decision was in line with reports.
Referees clearly put some work into their reviews and added substantial value to the manuscript for resubmission at another journal.