Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
351 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
Motivation:
We submitted the manuscript in February 2023.
At February 21, 2023, we received a confirmation that the manuscript was successfully submitted.
At May 9, 2023, we informed about the status of the article, and we received a prompt answer that the manuscript was under peer review.
At September 4, 2023, we informed again and received a prompt answer. They aswered that teh review process typically takes 12 to 16 weeks, but that there are occasions during which it takes a little bit longer.
At February 7, 2024, we informed again (this time we also emailed the Editor; not only the editorial assistant). The Editor answered promptly that the article was rejected because they could not find reviewers.
We did not receive any feedback about the contents our article.
However, the Taylor & Francis editorial team was friendly enough to do specific suggestions to send our paper to four low-impact commercial journals of Taylor & Francis.
At February 21, 2023, we received a confirmation that the manuscript was successfully submitted.
At May 9, 2023, we informed about the status of the article, and we received a prompt answer that the manuscript was under peer review.
At September 4, 2023, we informed again and received a prompt answer. They aswered that teh review process typically takes 12 to 16 weeks, but that there are occasions during which it takes a little bit longer.
At February 7, 2024, we informed again (this time we also emailed the Editor; not only the editorial assistant). The Editor answered promptly that the article was rejected because they could not find reviewers.
We did not receive any feedback about the contents our article.
However, the Taylor & Francis editorial team was friendly enough to do specific suggestions to send our paper to four low-impact commercial journals of Taylor & Francis.
31.7 weeks
31.7 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
7 months for an outright rejection based on one reviewer's opinion.
The editor is accessible and answers to a status update requests.
The editor is accessible and answers to a status update requests.
14.4 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
very quick review process and very quick decision following resubmission
24.6 weeks
24.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Drawn back
2016
Motivation:
We doubt that this manuscript was carefully reviewed because in only one review that we have received, only a few minor changes that could be easily corrected were suggested. Also, by his comments the reviewer showed a lack of understanding and knowing about the topic of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor did not write any valid explanation of the rejection although the reviewer commented that results were interesting, and certainly did not suggest rejection of the manuscript. After so long a period of waiting we consider this kind of treatment to be unfair at least.
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2013
Motivation:
The reviewer's reports were quite positive, they suggested only a few minor changes. However, the final decision was still rejection without giving any explanation. I think it is not quite fair after 4,5 months of waiting.