Reviews for "Population, Space and Place"
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 |
Population, Space and Place | 18.9 weeks |
25.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: The reviews we received were very helpful and to the point. We were therefore highly disappointed when the only reply we received upon submitting a revised version - which we thought addressed the concerns raised in the reviews - was an outright rejection without any motivation whatsoever. Even upon inquiring we received no explanation for the rejection from the editor. | |||||||
Population, Space and Place | 16.6 weeks |
30.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The process was long, but the paper was significantly improved. The comments were fair and extremely detailed. | |||||||
Population, Space and Place | 9.0 weeks |
9.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected |
Population, Space and Place | n/a | n/a | 13.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Population, Space and Place | 15.2 weeks |
15.2 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
Population, Space and Place | 13.0 weeks |
26.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: I am very satisfied about my submissions to this journal. The comments of the reviewers always helped to improve the article. |