Reviews for "Neuropsychologia"

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
Neuropsychologia 4.1
weeks
7.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviewers were knowledgeable, thorough, clear on what they thought should be addressed and clarified and very much interested in improving the quality of the manuscript. Revisions required a lot of work but, in retospective, it was most definitely worth it. The editor was professional and everything has been handled in an excellent and timely manner.
Neuropsychologia n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Neuropsychologia 8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: Review speed was reasonably fast. However, one of the reasons why the manuscript was rejected was that a similar paper had been published in the same journal *after* we had submitted our manuscript. We inquired reconsideration of the editor decision immediately based on this ground, but it took almost two months and a lot of reminder emails to receive a response from the editor in chief, in which our concern was not addressed at all.
Neuropsychologia 4.0
weeks
4.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Motivation: I was not agree with a few of the referees' ideas, but they worked in a reasonable amount of time.
Neuropsychologia 5.6
weeks
12.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Neuropsychologia 7.9
weeks
10.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The first reviews had not exactly grasped the subject of my paper, whereas this was more correctly appreciated after reading the revised version and the responses to the reviewers.
Neuropsychologia 3.7
weeks
4.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Some methodological aspects of the study were not correct and the reviewers' suggestions were very useful