Reviews for "Language Learning"
Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
Language Learning | 9.7 weeks |
23.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 7.1 weeks |
13.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 11.7 weeks |
37.3 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: This journal has very high (and meticulous) standards for publication. I hope other journals follow suit. | |||||||
Language Learning | 10.9 weeks |
23.1 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 12.6 weeks |
32.6 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 8.0 weeks |
16.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 7.0 weeks |
7.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Language Learning | 13.0 weeks |
26.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: My experience with Language Learning was the best. The feedback from the reviewers and especially from the editor were very helpful | |||||||
Language Learning | 10.8 weeks |
10.8 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Very efficient process throughout. Editor offered many detailed suggestions for improving the final draft. |