Reviews for "Novum Testamentum"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
11.3
weeks
11.3
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 0
(very bad)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: The journal provided me with external review and gave no specific reasons for rejecting my manuscripts. I suspect that what I received was a generic paragraph sent to all the author whose article suffered the same fate as mine:

'I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum.

I wish you all the best in your academic endeavours.

Thank you for having considered Novum Testamentum for publication of your research.

Yours sincerely,'
14.0
weeks
14.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The review process was not terribly long but there was no feedback at all on my article. I received no comments from the reviewer, simply an email from the editor saying, "I regret to inform you that the editorial board did not accept your manuscript for publication in Novum Testamentum."
22.0
weeks
22.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 5
(excellent)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: All of my interaction with the editorial assistant of the journal was pleasant and professional, and I have no complaints about the experience.
20.9
weeks
20.9
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected, I did not receive any comments from the reviewers concerning the reason the manuscript was rejected.
19.1
weeks
19.1
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 3
(good)
Accepted 2015
Motivation: There was no actual review included in the decision. I was given a generic announcement of acceptance followed by a brief list of typos. I think it'd have been beneficial if the journal provided a slightly more extended feedback to the author as I think that my article would have profited from some suggestions for minor revisions (as is usual in the review process). Otherwise OK.