Reviews for "Research Policy"

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
Research Policy n/a n/a 41.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
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.
Research Policy 15.0
weeks
25.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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.
Research Policy 20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 0 n/a 1
(bad)
Rejected
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.
Research Policy 22.6
weeks
22.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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.
Research Policy 26.0
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 1 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Rejected
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.
Research Policy 55.3
weeks
55.3
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected
Research Policy n/a n/a 140.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: An outgoing editor did not pass on submitted papers, leading to a long revision process.
Research Policy n/a n/a 69.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)