Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.3 weeks
19.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2021
Motivation:
The communication with the Editors was smooth. The submission process was easy. The reviewers read our paper carefully. Overall, great experience.
19.9 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
Received one constructive review, from a reviewer who had clearly engaged deeply with the topic of the manuscript and pointed out that with "little work" the paper could be much improved. The second reviewer, however, appeared to dismiss the paper entirely because they disagreed with my methodological approach (ethnographic and interview data), instead insisting that valid data would have been transcripts of recorded natural conversation. Ultimately, the Associate Editor adjudicated and ruled in favour of rejection.
14.7 weeks
28.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The editor was very responsive and constructive throughout the evaluation process. The journal has an online first publishing system, which is interesting since the print version might take a bit longer.
12.3 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Two detailed referee reports, which arrived in reasonable time. Pleasant communication with editors. The journal has an online-first publication mode which is great because print issues lag behind.