Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
26.0 weeks
60.8 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Thorough reviews, which did improve the manuscript. However the process took a long time, and in later review rounds some of the requests became rather picky.
43.3 weeks
43.3 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Unacceptably slow, black-boxed process and really weird editorial decisions. The first two reviews were positive by the editor's own admission but were judged not as detailed as optimal, so additional reviewers were invited, one of which turned out to be hostile to the approach. This hostile review, less detailed than the first two, then became the main reason for the editor to reject the ms.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
Language has a reputable name, and I've published with them before (also with a >6mo handling time). I'll be advising anyone to steer clear from it, now that seemingly random editorial decisions are added to the ridiculously long handling time.
30.3 weeks
85.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The first round took 6 months, which is a time span one can accept (and expect, with this journal). The second round was, unfortunately, a disaster. We had to contact our editors multiple times to ask about the progress. After half a year of our resubmission, we were told that we would get a decision within a month. Having waited 3 months, we asked again, being told this time that the editors were only waiting for a statistics reviewer. We waited 3 more months, wrote to the editors again, who then accepted our paper for publication, without sending us any review (not even a statistics review) or any substantive editorial comments. Quite a frustrating experience, albeit with a positive outcome.
33.3 weeks
33.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Editor noted in his acceptance that the paper was "accepted as is, a rarity at this journal". Consequently we didn't get to see the peer review reports, even though the paper had spent over seven months in the review process.
21.1 weeks
21.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Language is known to be slow so 21 weeks is reasonable (so I'm told). I feel like the associate editor was way harsher than the reviewers, which were both critical but also constructive. An editor less sceptical about the line of research pursued would have recommended revise and resubmit based on these reviews. Still, the overall quality of the reviews was good, and overall the experience was helpful.