Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
18.3 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
18.3 weeks
20.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
Motivation: I was motivated to improve the paper because that was the first ever reviewer report for the paper. The reviewer comments did help in improving the paper. After I resubmitted the paper, it was outright accepted without any further changes.
17.0 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
3
Accepted
2020
6.1 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
Motivation: Both reviewers dedicated much attention to the paper and were very accurate in writing their comments. Also the suggestions of the editor during the entire review process were useful and to the point. Finally, the whole process was handled in relatively short time.
26.4 weeks
32.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2019
17.1 weeks
17.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
2
Rejected
2018
17.4 weeks
34.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
2018
32.1 weeks
32.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
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.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
39.3 weeks
70.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Accepted
2017
n/a
n/a
18 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2017
27.3 weeks
27.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
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.
11.3 weeks
11.4 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
5
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!
25.0 weeks
54.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
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.
35.0 weeks
35.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
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.
17.3 weeks
22.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2015
15.3 weeks
15.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Rejected
2015
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
34.7 weeks
40.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
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.