Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
24.3 weeks
24.3 weeks
n/a
0 reports
n/a
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
After 6 months waiting for a response from the reviewers we were surprised to see that the editor had sent our, strictly quantitative analysis, to a reviewer admitting he is a qualititative researcher (had no idea for the 80% of the paper in essence) and one (hopefully) quantitative whom was asking why we did not use fixed effects in a logit model and he was “concerned “ for the use of the sampling weights. Meanwhile they were provided with a full separate appendix providing the different sampling weights according to different boost-samples in different years while we are also re-scaling them to all account the same… Have not faced such a inadequate review process ever before… disappointing
n/a
n/a
19 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2024
14.6 weeks
14.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2024
Motivation:
Very poor quality reviews. Two peer reviewers focused on detailing their own subjective experiences rather than evaluating the paper. One other reviewer also appeared not to have read the article.
n/a
n/a
65 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
Desk rejected, but the manuscript was properly reviewed by the editor. Apparently we didn't explain a key detail of the methodology well enough, and it was regarded as a flaw rather than a (logical) necessity.
17.5 weeks
29.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2020
Motivation:
Pros
- Constructive feedback from reviewers that improved the manuscript
- Professional editor with clear instructions
Cons
- Lengthy review times
- Manuscript was published 7 months after acceptance
- Constructive feedback from reviewers that improved the manuscript
- Professional editor with clear instructions
Cons
- Lengthy review times
- Manuscript was published 7 months after acceptance
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
24.9 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
It seems that two of the referees did not possess very deep knowledge of the main theoretical literature, and one of the reviewers admitted he/she is neither sociologist nor philosopher. Furthermore, the comment about country selection is unfair: postdoc projects work like this. To get funding, you are supposed to find an interesting comparative case, and there are some reasons for this but for the topic of the manuscript it could have been anywhere. It is just that my project got funding to study these two particular countries.
n/a
n/a
31 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The review was rather poor in that many of the points were not inherent faults of the paper but rather issues that could have been addressed and revised, if given the appropriate time/space to do so. Thus the decision sounded more subjective rather than grounded on fair points.
12.1 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2019
Motivation:
We fruitlessly waited about 4 weeks between time referees concluded their reports and the editor Final decision. However, the Editor simply reported reviewers' reports without any personal evaluation of the paper. Reviewers' reports were quite short (one made by few lines)
We fruitlessly waited about 4 weeks between time referees concluded their reports and the editor Final decision. However, the Editor simply reported reviewers' reports without any personal evaluation of the paper. Reviewers' reports were quite short (one made by few lines)
n/a
n/a
61 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
I have submitted an article for a special issue. After almost two months, I have received desk rejection without any comments apart from a note that they were overwhelmed with the number of submissions.
n/a
n/a
11 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
Motivation:
The decision to reject the manuscript related largely to the rather under-developed theoretical contribution within the field of the assessed content. The editor considered the empirical material as strong and to be commended. As there was little extension and development of existing sociological theories and concepts which is what would be needed to progress further through the WES review process, the editor recommended to submit the paper to a different journal.
20.0 weeks
20.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2015
Motivation:
Received three half-page reviews which made clear that the reviewers did not like the manuscript, but were not particularly engaged or constructive.
14.1 weeks
37.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The second round took a bit too long
14.1 weeks
36.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2014
n/a
n/a
25 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
8.7 weeks
8.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2014
22.0 weeks
46.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
4.3 weeks
9.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2013
Motivation:
The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
13.0 weeks
28.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011