Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.3 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
The editor was particular capable of finding suitable reviewers for our paper within a matter of days. All reviewers provided relevant and valuable comments, and our paper clearly was strengthened in light of those comments. Hat off to the editor of LID, who is very skilled of getting things move along quickly and smoothly.
11.0 weeks
18.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Accepted
2018
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
We submitted a replication of a study that was previously published in Learning and Individual Differences. The original work was rife with errors between the results, analyses, and interpretation of these results.
Our findings demonstrated that the original results did not replicate and we even refined the previous work within a larger, more diverse sample. We do not believe that our manuscript was free of faults, but it was a major improvement over the original work.
Two out of three of our reviewers suggested publication of our manuscript pending edits, however one reviewer flat out rejected our work without strong rationale for doing so. They stated that we misquoted and misinterpreted the original paper- which is not true at all. We provided direct quotations from the original manuscript!
The editor then took 7 months to reject the manuscript, stated that the manuscript had its strengths, but then indicated it wasn't an appropriate fit for the journal. Again, this was a replication of work that was previously published in Learning and Individual Differences... so how does it not fit within the journal four years after the original study is published.
10 out of 10 would NOT recommend.
Our findings demonstrated that the original results did not replicate and we even refined the previous work within a larger, more diverse sample. We do not believe that our manuscript was free of faults, but it was a major improvement over the original work.
Two out of three of our reviewers suggested publication of our manuscript pending edits, however one reviewer flat out rejected our work without strong rationale for doing so. They stated that we misquoted and misinterpreted the original paper- which is not true at all. We provided direct quotations from the original manuscript!
The editor then took 7 months to reject the manuscript, stated that the manuscript had its strengths, but then indicated it wasn't an appropriate fit for the journal. Again, this was a replication of work that was previously published in Learning and Individual Differences... so how does it not fit within the journal four years after the original study is published.
10 out of 10 would NOT recommend.
21.7 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015