Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Reviewers' feedback was detailed and helpful. Although I disagreed with key parts of the feedback (inevitable!), overall I agree the decision to reject was well-considered. Editor's comments were considered and kind. Turn around time was faster than expected, as I had not released that it had been sent to reviewers.
n/a
n/a
34 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
Motivation:
Apparently they reject 35% of manuscripts after internal review (too many submissions, reviewer fatigue), and ours was one of them. Feedback from editor was very precise and competent, but also just 4 sentences.
n/a
n/a
37 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
Although this goes under "desk reject", I have never received such precise feedback on a desk rejection, clearly identifying why the paper was not a good fit for the journal.
15.2 weeks
20.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
16.9 weeks
35.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2017
8.1 weeks
60.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
After 2 rounds of R&R, 5 reviewers, and more than 1.5 years, the article was rejected because one reviewer brought up new critical issues (that s/he had ignored at the previous round) and the other required further revisions. The editor changed his position from "I agree with the sentiment of most reviewers that this has the potential to be a very important paper" to "the prospects of getting the manuscript published at JOP are exceedingly slim" in one round of revisions (and about 6 months). That was a giant waste of time and energy.
20.6 weeks
24.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Overall good handling and high quality reviews.
First review round took quite long.
First review round took quite long.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
quick process, useful reviews