Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
22.1 weeks
33.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2024
Motivation: The editors and reviewers gave me high quality feedback -- from the standpoint of the writing, the structure, the content, and they even suggested sources I was not familiar with. As a new academic, it was very much appreciated. My only suggestion would be to have stayed on top of the reviewers for the first round. I lost a several months time to revise because the editor was waiting for one of the reviewers, who never did provide a review. If I had received the benefit of the remaining reviews earlier, it would have been less stressful for me. Nevertheless, the individuals selected as editors and reviewers were extremely helpful, and also friendly and caring, which I really appreciated very much. It was a great process for me.
10.1 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2023
8.0 weeks
11.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: The journal kept me up to date with the review process; the feedback was extensive and helpful. I found the journal to be supportive and helpful throughout the process.
9.6 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Great constructive reviews regarding the literature review and the theoretical part of the article. However, we wished to have some feedback on the statistical part of the paper as well.
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
2018
9.7 weeks
19.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: JME say that they take a developmental approach to working with authors, and this was certainly my experience. The reviews were insightful but extremely constructive. I learnt a lot from two of the reviewers (one review was very light) and my paper was greatly improved, and makes a much stronger contribution now.
13.0 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
13.0 weeks
21.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2018