Reviews for "Local Government Studies"

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
Local Government Studies Drawn back before first editorial decision after 182 days Drawn back
Motivation: This article received a revise and resubmit the first time around. While we did not necessarily agree with all the comments, we extensively rewrote the article, added new variables, and re-ran the analysis, and gave a detailed account of all of this. This was several weeks work. We then resubmitted the article. Instead of sending it back to the original referees, we instead received a new bunch of referee reports from different reviewers, which did not always agree with the previous reviewers, and we were again given the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We are not clear that there is an end to this process. Presumably we could spend another couple of/few weeks revising this article, only to have the process repeated. This is a mid-range journal and is simply not worth the effort to do this. We have already expended 6 months on this. So we will send it to another journal.
Local Government Studies 20.4
weeks
62.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected
Motivation: The editorial role did not appear to give the sufficient guidance to the referees. The editor rejection of the first positive evaluations of the two first referees after the first revise-and-resubmit round appears as curious. This is especially so as it did not become fully credible that it indeed is the journal policy to recruit a third referee once the two original referees have been recommending acceptance. The process was not transparent to the author to the degree that the author could have verified if the third referee possibly was a member of the journal editorial board rather than somebody else, such as truly an external anonymous referee. The disappearance of this third referee also appears as curious, as the article was of standard length and simple in its structure. As to the two new referees that the editor recruited next, the process appears as somewhat unusual. How can it be that an article that first was almost accepted could become worse and worse despite rounds of rewriting as demanded by the editor and/or the referees? This journal has no very elevated impact point value, and publishes besides scholarly articles also articles devised by practitioners.