Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
31.4 weeks
52.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
The manuscript was initially submitted for a special issue in November 2023. After a significantly delayed review process, we received a major revision request in June 2024. Despite the own acknowledgment of “discrepant feedback” from guest editor Raina Lamade, we worked diligently to revise the manuscript across multiple rounds, ultimately reworking it into a brief report as proposed by the guest editor for acceptance, in full compliance with content requirements—even when those contradicted earlier editorial guidance.
In April 2025, manuscrit was rejected based on concerns that were already addressed—or in some cases, stem directly from changes we were explicitly instructed to make. We were told to minimize empirical content and emphasize theory, only to be criticized for lack of empirical grounding. We were asked to condense theoretical discussion, and then faulted for insufficient theory.
The rejection of this manuscript after 1.5 years of extensive good-faith engagement and multiple substantial revisions is disheartening and represents a serious failure of the editorial process.
In April 2025, manuscrit was rejected based on concerns that were already addressed—or in some cases, stem directly from changes we were explicitly instructed to make. We were told to minimize empirical content and emphasize theory, only to be criticized for lack of empirical grounding. We were asked to condense theoretical discussion, and then faulted for insufficient theory.
The rejection of this manuscript after 1.5 years of extensive good-faith engagement and multiple substantial revisions is disheartening and represents a serious failure of the editorial process.
17.6 weeks
17.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
One reviewer made very positive comments while the other did not seem to speak English as a first language, and requested changes indicated that he/she did not understand the methods of the study. When this was pointed out to the action editor and editor, we were invited to resubmit the manuscript and told that it would undergo another full review with new reviewers. This was unacceptable, and we declined.