Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
29.0 weeks
29.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Reviewer 1 was clearly into my field, and gave me a "Revise and Resubmit" with some precious suggestions.
As for Reviewer 2 instead, who suggested "Reject", s/he seemed not to be really into my field (or s/he seemed to follow a, say, competing school within the same field). S/he suggested me to take into account theories which have little or nothing to do with the one I investigated in my paper, and made some assertions without justifying them. Also, her/his observations went not beyond page 7 (over 32), which suggests that s/he made very little effort to understand the content of the paper (s/he said that some definitions were unclear, but in reality they were formulated in a way which is standard in the field).
As for Reviewer 2 instead, who suggested "Reject", s/he seemed not to be really into my field (or s/he seemed to follow a, say, competing school within the same field). S/he suggested me to take into account theories which have little or nothing to do with the one I investigated in my paper, and made some assertions without justifying them. Also, her/his observations went not beyond page 7 (over 32), which suggests that s/he made very little effort to understand the content of the paper (s/he said that some definitions were unclear, but in reality they were formulated in a way which is standard in the field).