Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 18.0 days
Drawn back
2025
Motivation:
I submitted my manuscript on 18 September 2025. During the entire period after submission, the status remained “Article Received by Journal.” There were no updates, no communication from the editorial office, and no indication that the manuscript had progressed to editorial screening or peer review.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
After waiting 18 days with no response and no change in status, I decided to withdraw the paper on 6 October 2025.
While peer review naturally takes time, leaving a manuscript at the “Article Received by Journal” stage without any communication is extremely disappointing and suggests poor editorial management. Authors should at least receive basic updates indicating that their submission is being processed.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 18.0 days
Drawn back
2025
Motivation:
My experience with the editorial process was disappointing. After submitting my manuscript, the paper remained with the editor for approximately 18 days without being sent for peer review or showing any meaningful progress in the review process. Communication regarding the manuscript's status was limited, and there was no indication of when the review process would begin. Due to the lack of movement and uncertainty regarding the timeline, I decided to withdraw the manuscript. The withdrawal was processed, and the final disposition was recorded as "Withdrawn."
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
While 18 days is not an unusually long period in academic publishing, authors generally expect clearer communication and timely handling of submissions. Based on my experience, the initial editorial assessment stage could be more transparent and responsive.
17.4 weeks
21.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Efficient process that also improved the manuscript.
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
Reviewers were relatively fast and quite helpful. Verdict was 'minor revisions'. Time from acceptance to publication was longer than expected given the review process, and working with the typesetters was challenging (no direct contact possible, and corrections on proofs are not always handled systematically).
5.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The reviews were from experts in the subfield, came in swiftly and were quite helpful. After publication, the journal manager shared our paper with many of the people whose research we cited, thus drawing attention to our work. We were happy with this exposure, as we had picked Open Linguistics specifically because its open access nature.
5.0 weeks
5.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
Good, knowledgeable reviewers. Helpful editorial assistance.