Reviews for "Journal of Common Market Studies"
| Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 17.4 weeks |
19.4 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: Overall this was a good experience, with the exception of the waiting times, which were a bit longer than expected. The editor was in general hands off (the ms was not in his field), but eventually helpful to deal with a particularly hostile reviewer. | |||||||
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 9.1 weeks |
19.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: The overall process was incredibly quick and smooth, plus the editors were very transparent about all steps and what they expect in R&R. | |||||||
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 13.1 weeks |
13.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Critical but not unfair reviews. The main comments could have been met with "major revisions" | |||||||
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 7.6 weeks |
7.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: Very responsive. | |||||||
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 7.7 weeks |
7.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
| Motivation: We are very satisfied about the contact with the editorial office, as well as with the speed of the process. The reviewer reports, however, were less informative, as the comments suggested that they did not read the paper in detail. | |||||||
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 13.0 weeks |
14.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
| Journal of Common Market Studies | 9.6 weeks |
15.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
| Motivation: I feel this a generally positive experience. The turnaround time was decent. There were one or two comments that I felt stemmed from not having read the MS carefully, but overall the comments were well-observed and helped me to improve the manuscript a great deal. They were quite strict on the word count. | |||||||