Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
n/a
n/a
16 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Apparently we didn't make the "work that makes a really substantial and new contribution to the discipline, and speaks to a general political studies audience" criterion. Would have appreciated this evaluation a bit more quickly.
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
15.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: They could improve communication with authors regarding the status of the manuscript. The platform is not very informative and only indicates that the paper is "under review," without specifying whether all reviews are pending or if we are only waiting for one last reviewer. Additionally, I had expected a more thoroughly justified decision for rejecting the paper, especially since I received one positive and one negative review. I understand that the final decision rests with the Editor, but given the contrasting evaluations, it would have been helpful to receive a clearer explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
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
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
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
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.)
21.9 weeks
21.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
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
17.1 weeks
29.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
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.