Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
0.6 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2021
3.9 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: The associate editor handled my manuscript very professionally. He was very responsive when I reached out to him to ask questions. The two reviewers provided me with very constructive comments and suggestions that significantly contributed to the improvement of the quality of my work. The overall process was very quick and straightforward.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
0
0
Rejected
2018
Motivation: My experience was similar to the other negative reviews. Feedback from this journal is typically contradictory. Specifically, they claim that certain conventions are grounds for rejection, when the general contains several studies using the same approach. Additionally, I think that the reviewers used are often lacking in experience and produce nonsensical brief comments. In my opinion this is one of the worse jourmals I have ever had the misfortune to interact with.
4.1 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
3.4 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2020
12.7 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: Desk reject: relatively quickly. It was fair, the paper was not the BEST fit for the journal. Sent elsewhere.
13.0 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
6.3 weeks
6.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
23.0 weeks
38.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
0
Rejected
2016
Motivation: The revised manuscript responded to all the original reviewers comments and made all changes as requested. It was rejected following revision.

The goalposts were moved at halftime because the revised manuscript was reviewed by an additional reviewer. This was confirmed to me by the publisher.

Following a letter of complaint to the editor, I was informed that:

'the timeline for this issue is considerably more drawn out than what it is typical for a standard issue. With that said, this special issue is more reflective of a grant or scholarship rather than a standard publication. Consequently, the adjudication process is very strict, and requires that only a handful of nearly 200 submissions are retained for publication. '

This paper was submitted to a special issue for early career researchers. I assumed that I was submitting a manuscript for publication and not making a grant application. If this is indeed true, it should have been made clear to all authors at the point of submission and not revealed over a year later following a slow and unhelpful review process.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
25.6 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
3
2
Accepted
2014
10.5 weeks
13.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2012