Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
48.0 weeks
48.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
Incredibly slow process. An 11 month turnaround time is simply unacceptable. The explanation provided by the journal was that they had trouble finding reviewers, but this was only provided in response to an enquiry after I had heard nothing from the journal for 7 months. Two of the three reviewers made sensible suggestions that will improve the quality of the paper. However reviewer 3 made a point that failed to engage with the existing research referenced in the paper arguing that the piece was deficient for not investigating the impact of an independent variable that has been shown to have no significant impact on the dependent variable in recent research conducted on the same case study. A competent reviewer should at least acknowledge the findings of existing research cited in the paper. Overall the quality of the reviews would not deter me from submitting to the journal in future, but the extremely lengthy turnaround time will.
8.1 weeks
8.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
It took a while, but the reviewer reports were painfully accurate in identifying weaknesses with the paper.
13.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
The editor's email was rudely phrased, especially since I was suggested by an editor to send it to this journal and the the reviews suggest the reviewers voted R&R. While not everything in the reviews was clear and some of it is impossible (ie creating new data), some helpful comments can be extracted. The time and the editor's attitude have put me off this journal though.
9.0 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The points adressed by the reviewers could have easily been resolved. We believe the journal declined as one reviewer was not sure about the "fit" of our manuscript with the journal.