Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
Motivation:
The job of reviewers was quite good. Unfortunately, this was not the case for the editor. It took a month from the time the reviewers made the review to the time we got the feedback. Moreover, he reject the paper without giving a reasoned motivation. In fact, we wish we could respond to the reviewers.
33.6 weeks
33.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
I decided to withdraw the manuscript after nearly 8 months of waiting for a decision. When I checked in after 5 and 7 months, both time the editors said the second reviewer was late and they would try to find a new one. The one review I did get was very short but positive.
19.0 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
The comments of the reviewers were rather general and mostly asked for a more comprehensive discussion of the contribution; however, the editors rejected
16.6 weeks
16.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
38.1 weeks
38.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Journal held the manuscript for over 8 months. Did not respond to emails at the 5 month mark. The journal had only one review, which was positive, for months, then solicited a second review which was cursory. Editor rejected the paper for "methodological" reasons which were not specified. In fact, the paper was very strong methodologically.
13.1 weeks
13.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
Motivation:
Acceptable time to first decision. One of the reviewers made a right methodological critique, but impossible to resolve in the context of the study. The other reviewer did not provide interesting critiques.
12.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
We suggested three reviewers upon submission of the manuscript and I think it's safe to say that the two reviews we received were from two of the reviewers we suggested.
21.6 weeks
21.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Reviewers did not seem very competent and reviews were useless. Waste of time.
22.7 weeks
22.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2017
Motivation:
Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
15.3 weeks
36.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
Motivation:
The handling of the manuscript was highly standardized with almost no communication from the editor (as you would expect at such a large journal). One reviewer did a good job, the other not but was muted by the editor during the process.
23.9 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
28.3 weeks
37.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015
18.9 weeks
28.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
No clear reason for rejection was provided.
14.1 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
During the review process, the editor changed. The first editor was quite enthusiastic about the paper (revise and resubmit). But the new editor not so much (reject in the second round).
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
4.3 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014