Reviews for "World Development"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
World Development	26.4 weeks	32.1 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2019
World Development	17.1 weeks	17.1 weeks	n/a	1	2 (moderate)	2 (moderate)	Rejected	2018
World Development	17.4 weeks	34.0 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2018
World Development	32.1 weeks	32.1 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Rejected	2015
World Development	Motivation: Valuable comments of one of the reviewers helped to address the gaps of the paper. We resubmitted the paper to another journal.
World Development	n/a	n/a	6.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2017
World Development	39.3 weeks	70.0 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted	2017
World Development	n/a	n/a	18.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2017
World Development	27.3 weeks	27.9 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2017
World Development	Motivation: We received constructive comments which were easy to address. The editor was very prompt to accept the article. Overall I am very satisfied by World Development. This is the second time I have an article accepted and the overall process is constructive and relatively fast.
World Development	11.3 weeks	11.4 weeks	n/a	4	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2012
World Development	Motivation: This was a very fast procedure. The editor was very prompt and helpful and the reviewers were constructive. The required changes were minor and I like the fact that the editor was able to quickly make a decision to accept the manuscript. I will definitely submit to this journal again!
World Development	25.0 weeks	54.3 weeks	n/a	3	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2016
World Development	Motivation: The journal sets very tight deadlines for resubmissions and compared to this their own process is not super-fast, but ok. Communication by managerial team is excellent.
World Development	35.0 weeks	35.0 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Rejected	2016
World Development	Motivation: Initial submission had been duplicated in the file tank directory. The online submission system is not particularly user-friendly with many deficiencies which for instance prevent a simple and straightforward manuscript file generation. The referee comments were mixed. Some of them were elegant, precise, sharp and fully acknowledgable. Many of them had little resemblence to the content of the submission and mainly reflected the referees' personal view on the topic of the paper and outright criticism of the points which the paper never raised.
World Development	17.3 weeks	22.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2015
World Development	15.3 weeks	15.3 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Rejected	2015
World Development	n/a	n/a	13.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2012
World Development	34.7 weeks	40.0 weeks	n/a	2	2 (moderate)	0 (very bad)	Rejected	2013
World Development	Motivation: The review process was very long and the reviewers were from a competing field, with little expertise in this specific field (as they acknowledged in the reviews). They came with a negative verdict in the second review round (based on vague arguments), which was uncritically taken over by the editor. After I complained about this, the editor told me that he would discuss the issue with somebody from the editorial team and that this could take another three weeks to a month. It then took 15 weeks and required two reminders from my side before I finally got an answer. He let me know that they would allow me to submit the paper again and start a completely new review process. However, after this experience (which meant a time loss of over a year), I did not want to run the risk of more delay and published in another journal.