Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.7 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2026
Motivation:
t took somewhat longer than expected for the manuscript to enter the peer-review process. However, once the review process began, it proceeded quite smoothly. Although there were three rounds of revisions, the editor managed the process efficiently and kept it moving forward.
Regarding the quality of the reviews (which were provided by three different reviewers), I believe that some of the comments and suggestions genuinely improved the quality of the manuscript. However, I also felt that one of the reviewers appeared to rely rather indiscriminately on AI tools. This made the revision process unnecessarily challenging for the authors, without leading to a substantial improvement in the manuscript. Many of the requested changes went beyond the realistic scope of the paper, and some criticisms were made from different theoretical paradigms without attempting to integrate them in a meaningful way.
Regarding the quality of the reviews (which were provided by three different reviewers), I believe that some of the comments and suggestions genuinely improved the quality of the manuscript. However, I also felt that one of the reviewers appeared to rely rather indiscriminately on AI tools. This made the revision process unnecessarily challenging for the authors, without leading to a substantial improvement in the manuscript. Many of the requested changes went beyond the realistic scope of the paper, and some criticisms were made from different theoretical paradigms without attempting to integrate them in a meaningful way.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Only very generic comments were provided, which did not justify their decisions, fair to authors or help academic theories to advance.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
//The article is not in a quality we expect for becoming considered for review with JIMI, e.g. with regard to literature review, methods, discussion and limitations. The article needs as well substantial corrections. //
The editor in chief did not do his job at all.
13.9 weeks
13.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014