Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.3 weeks
23.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
The editor was very supportive and gave me extension during the second review round as I was hospitalized and could not meet the deadline.
n/a
n/a
32 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
22.9 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
6.9 weeks
6.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The review process was relatively fast. The editor provided us with a reasonable explanation for the rejection. We got transferred to other journals and could use the feedback from the reviews to improve our paper.
17.7 weeks
17.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2019
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
19.3 weeks
34.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
I had to thoroughly revise, but do believe that the manuscript improved a lot through the review process. All in all, reviews were fair and useful. The first two review rounds could have been a bit faster in my opinion. I note that this took place during a change of editors for this journal.
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2014
Motivation:
The editor had apparently not even read the paper, and provided completely irrelevant feedback (for instance, she wanted us to address issues with using a sample of participants from outside of the US, when in fact the study was on media representations and did not include participant data at all). The reviews were also not attached to the decision letter. When I emailed for confirmation, the editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said her critique was still valid (???!!). Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with with the bizarre requests made by the editor. Several weeks after the correspondence with the editor, we received the actual reviews, which were actually positive.
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
13.0 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2012
Motivation:
While the replies of the editor and reviewers were swift, the process could hardly be called standard policy. For instance, before the manuscript was sent out to any reviewers, the editor already requested adjustments.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.