Reviews for "Political Studies"

Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: The decision was fast - which is good. No reason has been given, though, why the paper was did not make a new contribution ("Although we recognise that there are strengths in your submission, unfortunately the editors judged that this paper did not make such a contribution")
10.0 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
2019
Motivation: Fast review process. One very positive reviewer, one rather negative reviewer. The editor(s) allowed their own interpretation of the article to determine the outcome. Quality of the reviews was rather high.
9.3 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
Motivation: The comments by both reviewers were very helpful and the editors provided us with clear points to address in our revision.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
21.9 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
2016
Motivation: I received three reviews. Two were very enthusiastic suggesting accepting the manuscript after minor revisions, the third was more critical, pointing to problems and missing points that were actually addressed in the manuscript.
12.0 weeks
19.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
17.1 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2015
Motivation: One reviewer liked the paper, the other one did not. That's always a difficult starting point, but we changed the paper substantially to take on board the second reviewer. After the revisions, the second reviewer still didn't like it and added new criticisms including many that are blatently wrong. Sadly the editor didn't pick up any of this. Given that the journal doesn't do multiple rounds of revisions, that's it.