Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
13.0 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
If the editor does not listen to reviewers' recommendation, why waste time and energy to have the paper reviewed?
40.3 weeks
40.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Had a profoundly terrible experience with the editorial process. The review took a long time because the editors wanted a reviewer with a lot of knowledge of the language - this is an excellent idea, and as such I really didn't mind the long turnaround time for the review. The decision was 'accept with minor revisions'; the one review could have been more rigorous, I felt, since it seemed to focus mostly on formatting and typos.
What made the experience unsatisfying was that the editor gave us many additional detailed comments, but only AFTER we had made the necessary revisions and submitted the revised version. These post-hoc comments were extremely unhelpful. As a result, it was 5 months between when the article was accepted and when it finally made it to the copy editor. I will probably end up submitting to the journal again in the future, but I'm already not looking forward to it.
What made the experience unsatisfying was that the editor gave us many additional detailed comments, but only AFTER we had made the necessary revisions and submitted the revised version. These post-hoc comments were extremely unhelpful. As a result, it was 5 months between when the article was accepted and when it finally made it to the copy editor. I will probably end up submitting to the journal again in the future, but I'm already not looking forward to it.
14.0 weeks
27.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013