Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.2 weeks
9.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Overall, the reviewers are very professional and provide a lot of useful advice and questions. And our paper was rejected because of some theory and sample size problems.
8.6 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The editor was very professional and gave us a fair chance to answer all of the critiques. She seemed very committed to helping us improve the quality of our manuscript. The handling process was rather quick. A couple of times the submission system rejected our files due to technical checks that felt arbitrary and were not explained well by the error notification, but otherwise all was good journal-wise.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
As for the reviewers - we felt that almost all of their points and suggestions were valid. Some comments, although valid, were a bit beside the point and adressing them in the manuscript made parts of it slightly cumbersome.
25.4 weeks
59.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
professional handling of paper. After the first round, the two initial reviewers were satisfied with the revised manuscript, but the editor nevertheless invited a third reviewer leading to more (major) revisions. This felt a bit unfair but in the end probably led to a better paper.
15.0 weeks
19.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The reviewers' comments helped in improving the paper. One reviewer (and the editor) offered a different way to parse the data and analyze it, making it more easy to communicate. The concerns of 2/3 of the reviewers led us to conduct a 2nd experiment which (a) replicated the results and (b) eliminated their concerns of potential alternative explanations. The theoretical contribution of the paper was also strengthened by the comments of the reviewers. Overall the process was a positive (although a bit lengthy).
7.3 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reviews were very long, but sadly at the same time not very helpful and at some points it was even evident that the reviewers did not really understand the experiments (which of course could be a result of bad writing!). The decision to reject the manuscript basically boiled down to "the topic is not interesting enough for our journal", which to me is always a very subjective and suboptimal decision criterion. Since the editor did not add anything to the review process, the reviewers get a slightly better rating than the overall experience. But of course the journal is not to blame for the habits of one person and this should not affect your decision to submit your work to this outlet.
n/a
n/a
29 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation:
The decision not to send out the manuscript was well motivated, but the fact that it took over 4 weeks to "desk reject" a paper seems quite long. To be fair, JEP:G gets a lot of submissions and this might have been bad luck.