Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
The process was very timely which is a plus. The first reviewer seemed like an expert and offered feedback to improve the paper and resubmit. This feedback was detailed with the inclusion of several previous publication for consideration and guidance on how to improve the paper. The second review seemed to have skimmed the paper and provided feedback that indicated that the paper was not thoroughly read or understood. As such, it led to comments that had no basis and reflects the reviewers lack of knowledge with the subject area.
The editor advised us to resubmit but given the poor quality of the second reviewers comments, we took all of the first reviewers comments under consideration and resubmitted to a different journal.
The editor advised us to resubmit but given the poor quality of the second reviewers comments, we took all of the first reviewers comments under consideration and resubmitted to a different journal.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The editorial process was very fast. The editors provided a one-page, general but to-the-point and constructive assessment.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
1.7 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The editorial team and reviewers moved very swiftly and my guess is that they could do so because the paper and journal offered a very good fit. They have a reputation for the type of articles I submitted and reviewers were quite well informed.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
To be honest, this is the most specific and constructive rejection letter I have ever seen. Kyklos editor introduced some papers in my research field, even gave summary and links. Furthermore, editor even recommended me specialized journal to submit my paper. Really appreciate that efforts ! Guide author very clearly and further the research, VERY HELPFUL!
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
The reviews were fair, but were very much oriented towards mainstream economiics.
6.9 weeks
15.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Quick and transparent process; comments from referees and editor were very helpful to improve the paper
26.0 weeks
47.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The reviews were generally good taking into account that the paper was highly specialised. I feel that one of the proposed changes was unnecessary
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013