Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
1
1
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Two of the three reviews were very similar and certain passages were nearly copy-pasted from each other. After bringing this to the attention of the handling editor and the editor in chief, they responded by saying that the two reviewers couldn't have colluded on their reviews because they have never co-authored a paper together, without following up with them directly. The quality of the two reviews was also very low and it was obvious that they had not fully read the manuscript. The third reviewer who had clearly paid more attention to the manuscript had advocated for major revisions but the paper was rejected.
11.6 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2018
Motivation: I am a frequent submitter to WRR and always have a positive experience. In this case the reviews were a bit less rigorous than usual, but overall the process was easy, quick, and fair.
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2017
15.3 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2017
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Rejected
2016
Motivation: While we did not receive the outcome we were hoping for (paper rejected), we got 4 reviews in a very timely manner (<2 months), all of which had helpful advice for improving the paper for submission to a different journal in the future.
7.6 weeks
8.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: The review process was timely, the reviewer and editor comments were helpful, and the online submission system was fairly intuitive. I have no complaints.
10.1 weeks
14.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2015
Motivation: Good, constructive review process. Knowledgeable reviewers who obviously took the time to read and understand the paper and provide useful comments which definitely improved the quality of the final accepted paper.
6.7 weeks
8.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Throughout the submission and review process the automated system and the editorial board were professional and clear. Following initial reviews the editor provided clear instructions on how they would like the reviewers' comments to be addressed.
4.3 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
8.6 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
2
1
Accepted
2014
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2010