Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.6 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2022
27.4 weeks
27.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Referee's report was shallow and useless despite the time taken to complete it. Referee did not seem to have the qualifications necessary to review the methodology and the subject of the article.
11.4 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
The Editorial Advisory Board desk rejected the paper, informing us it was not suitable for publication in the journal because it did not present a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. The paper would not merit publication in a leading journal like Research Policy.
n/a
n/a
43 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. In such a case the case for the reject should be a bit more detailed than a standard desk rejection
n/a
n/a
43 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation:
After 6 weeks I received the email, that the editor is assigned and 10 minutes later I received the email with the generic desk reject text (“not novel enough”). So, the editor read/screened the entire documents, incl. cover letter etc. and wrote the email in less than 10 minutes? I do not think so.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
6 weeks for a desk reject is in my eyes too long. Anyway, if it takes that long, even if it shouldn't, I expect a little more feedback. Also, I would expect that the manuscript is not wiped away by the editor in less than 10 minutes. They should do a desk reject faster or review the manuscript properly. But this way it is just not right.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
10.1 weeks
10.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The reviewers were well informed and gave good and fair feedback which was repairable. Considering the status of the journal they missed sufficient novelty in the results.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
8.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Decision after first review was quick and comments helpful. Time from submission to publication could have been quicker if we had submitted the revised manuscript sooner. Time from acceptance to online publication also very quick.
8.9 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Despite a rejection decision, the useful reviewer comments helped the paper get published elsewhere.
8.0 weeks
32.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
This manuscript would not have been achieved without the highly dedicated support of the reviewers who provided invaluable advice and recommendations on how to it could be restructured and revised. They clearly dedicated a significant amount of time to reviewing the paper and providing extensive review comments that led to a much stronger and more coherent paper.
n/a
n/a
41 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
My manuscript was with the editor for a 1.5 months. I had sent a few follow-up emails without response. Finally, I contacted another editor from the journal to ask for a follow-up and the same day the original editor to which the manuscript was submitted rejected the manuscript without any clear reason, other than that the manuscript was considered not fit for the journal. This is very dissapointing. I will never submit to this journal again.
15.0 weeks
25.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
One reviewer was really great, explaining in details what s/he expects and why. I still thank the person until this day. The other reviewer was just arrogant, and was unwilling to accept views that are not his or hers. The editor is sub-par. I feel very sad to say that, but the editor apparently didn't care about the hard work authors invested in the manuscript. He also flipped his guidance. In the first R&R he mentioned things that are critical to fix for acceptance. We fixed all that in the second R&R, but he still rejected us. He rejected our paper despite the fact that one reviewer recommended acceptance.
There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
There are good editors at Research Policy. The lesson learned is to avoid ones that doesn't have empathy.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
The mail informing about the decision mentioned that my paper is not suitable for Research Policy and wished me luck in submission with other journals. No reasons were given. 20 weeks is too long a time for such a comment.
22.6 weeks
22.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
First round of reviews took 6 months. Reviews were of somewhat OK quality, pointing towards major revisions. Editor did not bother to comment or synthesize reviews, but rejected with a one-line comment.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2016
Motivation:
Editor asked ME why I didn't 'remind him' that the paper was under review. Editor didn't bother commenting, and submitted one rather odd review, that he had sat on for many months, as cause for the rejection.
55.3 weeks
55.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
n/a
n/a
140 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
Motivation:
An outgoing editor did not pass on submitted papers, leading to a long revision process.
n/a
n/a
69 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013