Reviews for "Studies in Higher Education"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
12.3
weeks
12.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2019
Motivation: The manuscript was handled professionally and the process was smooth. I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers; I sensed that they were highly competent reviewers. One of the reviewers gave very comprehensive feedback and great ideas for a follow-up paper. I would consider submitting a paper to this journal again.
14.6
weeks
14.6
weeks
n/a 2 1
(bad)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2019
8.7
weeks
8.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response.
11.9
weeks
25.7
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2014
Motivation: Some reviewers made pertinent and helpful comments, but others did not and made comments which suggested they failed to understand the message of the paper. A better choice of reviewers would have helped. However, the editor proved to be very competent in dealing with the reviews and the changes made to the manuscript.
17.7
weeks
25.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2013
Motivation: Well chosen reviewers, good feedback overall, and very comptently conducted editorial process
11.4
weeks
11.4
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2014
28.9
weeks
28.9
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2014
Motivation: Too long review process; brief anonymous reviews only sent after repeated requests by author (since no clear information on review process duration was given after initial notice of paper being sent out for review).