Reviews for "World Development"

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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.