Reviews for "Phonology"

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
Phonology 20.3
weeks
28.3
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: I was deeply impressed by how quickly and smoothly this was handled. The reviews were extremely rigorous, and while they required a huge reworking of the paper to address, they were still very encouraging. The editors were very transparent and prompt in communications, and said that the revision would go to the Associate Editor, who would either approve it or send it back to the reviewers; I appreciated this level of communication about the process. The time between acceptance and assignment to a volume for publication was shorter than I would have expected.
Phonology 24.1
weeks
42.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The process was slow, but much of the time was due to delay in starting revisions on our part. The first reviews were very mixed: two were extremely positive, and the third was mean and generally unhelpful. The mean review asked for a lot of changes that we didn't think would improve the paper, and many of them are things we were asked to change back during the second round of reviews. Overall, we thought the editors handled the situation extremely well, though, and the paper was much improved as a result.
Phonology 17.9
weeks
41.0
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: The manuscript was sent to three reviewers who all recommended acceptance. The Associate Editor was most critical, and the revised manuscript was sent back to one of the three reviewers. Unfortunately, the second turn-around time was long. But overall, the review process improved the strength of the paper.