Reviews for "Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik"

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
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Immediately accepted after 0.9 weeks Accepted (im.)
Motivation: This time around, ZPE reviewed my article quickly and, though the review process was internal, the reviewer informed us he consulted the article's content with another authority in the subject area, who was one of the main conversation partners of the article's argument. That's professional and encouraging.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 9.3
weeks
9.3
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted
Motivation: The editor to whom I submitted my article (via email - there is no online submission system) responded to confirm receipt promptly and informed me that the review process may take some time. Two months later, I received notification of acceptance, with two reviews: one by the editor to whom I submitted the article, and another by an external reviewer. The reviews were not anonymous: names were present in the comments. Suggestions for improvement (which were mostly minor) were genuinely helpful and resulted in an improved final product. The entire process was very professional and cordial.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik n/a n/a 91.2
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The journal does not send its submission to external reviewers, most of the time not even to other members of the editorial board: the article is reviewed by the person you send it to. This can actually work fine, provided that the editor informs the author concerning the editorial decision and the reasons behind it!
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik n/a n/a 46.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The person reviewing my manuscript, though acknowledging the article's cogency, criticised me for not achieving something which, however, the article never purported to do. I'm not sure this ought to be attributed to a misunderstanding occasioned by fact that the reviewer was not a native English speaker (neither am I, for that matter) or to the reviewer's strong opinion on the subject. Also, the article was criticised for something, which is normally accepted in the journal itself (i.e. analysis of a manuscript on the basis of digital images rather than personal inspection—a normal procedure, esp. in the digital humanities era).