Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
121 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation:
This journal is rather quaint. It does not seem to have a transparent and robust reviewing process, as far as I can tell. Articles are circulated amongst the 'editors', much like a pre-war gentlemen's club, checking to see if she is 'one of us'. The single review we received - which was unclear as to who it was from - was inadequate. It suggested some things we have already done (actually in sub-titles!), and then made some irrelevant references to 1970s-era and vaguely Marxist state theory. The paper we should note was not about state theory. The review then made some dismissive comments about 'lay' approaches, which seem to be approaches and rhetoric actually used by government and development agencies as far as I can tell; presumably opposed to those used by the clergy/scholastics/Gnostics. The journal seems adverse to engaging with policy as it is practiced and/or described in the field, despite its 'development' in the title and claim to be multi-disciplinary.