Reviews for "Studies in Higher Education"
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 |
Studies in Higher Education | 12.3 weeks |
12.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected |
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. | |||||||
Studies in Higher Education | 14.6 weeks |
14.6 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Studies in Higher Education | 8.7 weeks |
8.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
3 (good) |
Rejected |
Studies in Higher Education | n/a | n/a | 19.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: Manuscript was rejected for being out of scope. Very friendly and positive response received from editor. Very prompt response. | |||||||
Studies in Higher Education | 11.9 weeks |
25.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
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. | |||||||
Studies in Higher Education | 17.7 weeks |
25.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Well chosen reviewers, good feedback overall, and very comptently conducted editorial process | |||||||
Studies in Higher Education | 11.4 weeks |
11.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
Studies in Higher Education | 28.9 weeks |
28.9 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected |
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). |