Reviews for "Science and Public 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
Science and Public Policy 18.7
weeks
20.7
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Relatively speedy and efficient overall process, thorough and helpful review. Overall a very good experience and competent handling of manuscript by the editorial team.
Science and Public Policy 21.6
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were fair and the handling of the manuscript by the editor(s) also fair and professional. But the long time that this process took was surprising given my previous experiences with this journal, and this was not only due to slow reviewers – from what i could read in the online submission system it took over a month before the manuscript was even sent out to reviewers. This was a bit disappointing, but perhaps understandable: I can only guess that a significantly increased volume of manuscripts submitted to this journal has slowed down the review process. The journal continues to be a role model in handling of manuscripts and quality of reviewers, but the time lag has lowered its esteem in my view.
Science and Public Policy 4.3
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Science and Public Policy 10.6
weeks
20.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Fair review reports, and fair duration for review. This journal is efficient and handles manuscripts in a proper way.
Science and Public Policy 7.6
weeks
9.9
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good reviewers, speedy process, excellent handling. Reviewers comments really helped turning a manuscript with great potential but not sufficiently developed argument into one with coherent and clear message. Editor's work facilitated this.
Science and Public Policy 7.0
weeks
11.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted
Motivation: Very good handling of the manuscript. Good and competent reviewers and a rather speedy process.