Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
9.7 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The reviews were relevant, detailed and insightful. I believe our manuscript is improved as a result of the review processes. The journal editors were helpful, and available. The editorials decisions were quickly made.
7.1 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
This journal provides excellent, professional, insightful, and critical comments and suggestions for the author and also handles the manuscript in a very efficient way. The author really appreciates all the time and effort of the reviewers and editors.
11.7 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
This journal has very high (and meticulous) standards for publication. I hope other journals follow suit.
10.9 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Compared to review processes at other journals, the editor was more in contact with us during this submission, informing us about the progress of the reviews and explaining a small delay. The review process felt thorough, with constructive, useful comments both by the editor and reviewers. Overall, a very positive experience. Critical, constructive, and therefore helpful in improving the paper but respectful and friendly tone, and the editor was very fast in responding to questions.
12.6 weeks
32.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
The reviews of the external editors were of overall high quality. Moreover, the additional comments by the editor who summarized the reviewers´ comments and added comments of her own were very helpful and detailed, and helped to fine-tune the manuscript. Finally, we always received rapid and friendly answers to all of our questions during the editorial process.
8.0 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Very thorough review process. The editor was very helpful, taking care to read reviews carefully and advising on the best way to approach the required revisions.
7.0 weeks
7.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Quick turnaround compared to other journals in the field, particularly considering the allowed length of the ms (up to 10k words). Handling editor didn't just forward the reviews as is sometimes the case, but had clearly read both the ms and the reviews and pointed out which suggestions to prioritise. Handling editor was also quick to respond to a follow-up question of mine.
13.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
My experience with Language Learning was the best. The feedback from the reviewers and especially from the editor were very helpful
10.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2012
Motivation:
Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft.