| Acta Politica |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
1 |
Quite slow process, but good comments that improved the paper. I am not sure I would submit again, though. |
2019 |
04/04/20 |
| Acta Politica |
Accepted |
6 |
4 |
2 |
(year is 2017) |
2016 |
09/06/17 |
| Acta Politica |
Accepted |
5 |
4 |
2 |
Very positive experience with the two reviewers. Comments were extensive but spot on. Improved the paper. |
2017 |
09/18/18 |
| Acta Politica |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
5 |
im a god |
2021 |
04/07/21 |
| Acta Politica |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience. One reviewer very positive, the second one more critical but constructive in comments. Only took one month after resubmission. Will submit here again in the future. |
2015 |
11/09/15 |
| Acta Politica |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
1 |
We received a decision after three months - quite fast knowing AP's reputation. However, we only got one review. The reveiwer had certainly read the paper, but the comments weren't extremely helpful to revise our manuscript. |
2016 |
04/11/17 |
| Acta Politica |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
1 |
Terrible experience. This review process was the worst ever. The "First response" I was after I contacted them, six months after submission. Additionally, according to their webpage, they adopt a "doubble blided reivew" process. However, after more than 7 months, we got a rejection based on only one review. Will never send there again! |
2015 |
12/15/15 |
| Acta Politica |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Too long. Helpful feedback. |
2013 |
01/16/15 |
| Acta Politica |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Our manuscript was sent to reviewers but it was rejected in five days based on quite poor comments. Overall not a good experience, there was nothing useful in the comments, but at least it was fast |
2017 |
09/14/18 |
| Acta Politica |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
desk reject. Not their kind of topic, theory |
2017 |
06/05/18 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Pending |
8 |
N/A |
0 |
Over half a year and still nothing. What's going on at AJPS? |
2014 |
09/30/14 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted in Summer of 2012 and still no response...... |
2012 |
03/27/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
4 |
Editor exercised discretion to disregard a nonsensical review recommending rejection, replaced with a new reviewer in second round. Very quick turnaround time between rounds (~6wk each) |
2019 |
02/28/20 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
terrible feedback. they accepted something without understanding it. |
2014 |
07/22/16 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
This really isn't that hard. |
2021 |
04/07/21 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Editor was reasonable with requests. Positive Experience |
2014 |
05/06/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
This really isn't that hard. |
2021 |
04/07/21 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
2012 |
06/20/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/22/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Got two reviewer comments: one was very constructive and the other was a bit like self-advertisement. Overall good experience. |
2020 |
02/16/21 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2013 |
06/11/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast, thorough, good points and encouraging despite the decision. |
2016 |
04/04/16 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast response, excellent reviews |
2019 |
07/17/19 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Constructive, detailed feedback, though at least one of the three referees mistook what was an explicitly normative argument for an explanatory one. (2017, not 2016.) |
2016 |
07/04/17 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Rejected based on two very low quality reviewers. One did not understand IV, the other said reject on something that was clearly factual wrong about the method. So far, disappointed in the new team. |
2014 |
07/17/14 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
3 R&Rs, editor reject. The reviews were clear, thorough, and generally on point. Contradictory advice about how to move forward makes the next step difficult, but I'm satisfied with the experience. I wish I could send a thank you letter to the reviewers. |
2015 |
10/01/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
07/19/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
One harsh, but good review that improved the paper a lot. Another review seemed positive but raised good points. Harsh but useful overall. |
2014 |
11/12/14 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
(2017) Helpful reviewer reports overall - helpful summary from editor (editor tried to get a 3rd review wasn't turned in) |
2016 |
08/22/17 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Super fast and helpful. Both reviews and editor comments helped paper land in top subjield journal. Under Jacoby, of course. |
2017 |
01/07/19 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
04/27/14 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Critical but constructive. Two moderately positive, one moderately negative, editor reject. |
2017 |
10/23/17 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
formal IR paper, reviewers seemed to actually be formal theorists who read carefully, understood the model and offered thoughtful feedback |
2020 |
01/28/21 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
06/27/16 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
07/19/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
One tough review dooms a project. Good insights though. |
2014 |
05/06/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Good editorial feedback, though review quality was surprisingly poor |
2019 |
02/10/20 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Two positive reviews but editor called it at 4 mos. Time to move on. |
2014 |
06/20/14 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
07/19/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very helpful and thoughtful reviews -- was clear that they picked appropriate reviewers for the paper. |
2013 |
10/02/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Brutal, but helpful reviews. |
2012 |
04/22/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful reviews. |
2015 |
12/02/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
10/25/16 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviews were fairly tough, but seemed to be well thought out, and high quality. |
2013 |
09/15/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
01/22/16 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
2 reviews suggested R&R with some very helpful comments, and one rejected with less useful comments. The result was fair but disappointing, and the reviews will help us improve the paper to resubmit elsewhere. |
2019 |
03/02/20 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
Took a while and disappointed with the result but reviews were constructive. |
2011 |
05/29/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
2 weeks to a desk reject which was worthless. Focus on a minor methodological point which I actually dealt with in the paper. Absolutely worthless. |
2020 |
09/15/20 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk Reject within hours after submission. |
2016 |
11/28/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor didn't think it was a good fit. Had good ideas about where else to submit. Responded within one day, which is amazing. Overall very good/helpful experience. |
2015 |
07/29/15 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Extremely fast response/decision. Desk reject in only a few days but decision accompanied by very constructive comments from editors. |
2018 |
10/26/18 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
It took a week with a paragraph of how to restructure |
2019 |
02/11/19 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject from the field editor (theory) in less than a week. |
2019 |
08/19/19 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 10 days as too narrow. Recommendation to submit as-is to a subfield journal. |
2010 |
06/18/13 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick and professional desk reject in a couple of hours. Editor suggested other journals to submit the article to. |
2018 |
03/01/18 |
| American Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected in 2 days for lack of novelty. Was JL right? We will see if it hits somewhere else. |
2019 |
02/10/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Pending |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
Still waiting on ms submitted 11/2013 |
2013 |
06/02/14 |
| American Political Science Review |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
0 |
I noted I just had gender reassignment surgery in the cover letter and my article was accepted without review. The editors praised my submission as "brave" |
2021 |
08/16/21 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
A decent rejection |
2013 |
01/16/14 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
4 |
One of the reviewers clearly did not read the paper. Reviews all over the map. |
2018 |
03/16/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround was nice. One constructive and thoughtful review which will be helpful in rewriting the paper. Two other reviews which were both extremely brief and borderline useless. |
2023 |
03/23/23 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
mediocre reviews, then editor decided that piece was not general interest enough |
2013 |
10/06/14 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Brutal reviewers! |
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
07/19/15 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
07/24/14 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
10 weeks to first decision on a letter. Fair reviews with what seemed like doable changes. Nice message from the editor |
2020 |
02/18/21 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
4 |
Very fast with thorough reviews. One was clearly Straussian and looking to reject but it wouldn't have made a difference. |
2014 |
06/18/14 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
11/15/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
6 weeks for decision over Christmas so very fast. One positive review. Two very critical. One reviewer didn't know how to interpret interaction models |
2020 |
02/18/21 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
2 reviews were constructive, 1 by a scholar who didn't appreciate quantitative methods |
2016 |
01/28/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
I was rejected, but that was to be expected. Still, I was incredibly impressed with 1) the thoughtfulness of the reviews and the editor's comments, and 2) the speedy review process. About 6 weeks from submission to decision |
2013 |
03/20/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Received three reviews after four months. Fair comments, 1 reviewer went for R&R, two other were praising of the manuscript (recommended some changes) but also suggested not ‘APSR material’ |
2019 |
12/02/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Super fast but unhelpful comments |
2013 |
06/20/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2018 |
03/21/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Paper was submitted in normative theory. Subfield editor was professional and helpful, and so were the reviews. One recommended acceptance, one rejection, and one submitting the paper to a subfield journal. |
2019 |
07/25/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
2017 submission, not 2016 |
2016 |
06/15/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Though the result is not what was hoped for, the experience was good overall. Tough but helpful reviews. Will submit again in the future, if something is worth submission. |
2019 |
11/02/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Rejected because the reviewers and editors did not understand the methods. What an odd experience. |
2016 |
05/06/16 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reviewers with no apparent expertise in the subject matter of the paper. Not a single helpful comment. |
2018 |
07/25/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
The process very fast, but reviews short and weak. Ishiyama based his decision on the review that was factually wrong. Not a good outlet if you use methods developed after 2000. |
2013 |
07/27/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
2 high-quality reviews. Was disappointed to only have 2 reviews after waiting 5 months. |
2016 |
01/28/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Limited useful feedback. One very odd review evaded engaging the substance of the paper and focused solely on style, which reflected nothing but peculiar personal taste of the reviewer. |
2017 |
10/11/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One useful report that was sympathetic, with constructive but trenchant criticisms, and another report that was incredibly idiotic given the status of the journal. |
2016 |
06/15/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
The reviews were particularly high quality. Positive and professional experience. |
2018 |
05/25/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
Well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Some very good, one less good. Ultimately rejected. Ah well. Note: Submitted 2015. |
2014 |
07/06/15 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Mixed referee reports. One with extremely poor quality. Didn’t. |
2020 |
05/10/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/07/16 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
It takes 11 months to even get the first response. Nobody reply to email inquiry during the 11-month period. Editor's explanation is that they got lost in their system. The review comments are very average, and quite unacceptable since it takes 11 months to reach such "reviews". Very unprofessional editorial team. Very glad that APSR is shifting to new editing team now. |
2019 |
05/03/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2017 |
01/28/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Disappointed with the result, but what can you do... |
2014 |
03/13/15 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Extremely fast. Rejection based on lukewarm and but not very positive two reviews |
2013 |
09/28/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Three referee reports in surprisingly short time of 6 weeks. Two reviewers seemed to recommend revisions. Editors said even with R&R recommendations they can only proceed with papers that are enthusiastically supported |
2020 |
05/26/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Refs suggested paper be sent elsewhere. |
2012 |
03/12/13 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejection after 3 weeks with comments justifying the rejection that do not speak to the core of the argument presented in the article and that justify rejection based on not complying with a spefific theoretical perspective. I think this should have been left to reviewers... Bad experience, will not submit here any time soon again |
2019 |
06/12/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Didn't fit, to narrow |
2016 |
05/04/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
1 |
12 |
5 |
They don't except hamburger grilling recipes |
2016 |
07/29/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
10/11/16 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 2 weeks (generic letter) |
2020 |
11/06/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
response in two days. Brief explanation |
2019 |
02/08/19 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
07/19/15 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject is fine, but it took more than 4 weeks, with no meaningful comments from the editor. Terrible experience. |
2022 |
06/06/22 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Rather incompetent decision letter by an AD, with numerous typos and difficult to understand expressions. Reasons for rejection very abstract ("lacks a clear contribution substantively and/or empirically") and vague ("specific contribution is too vague and not sufficiently be developed to provide important new insights"), with reference to, inter alia, lack of conceptual discussion (for a letter format, limited to 4,000 words). Unprofessional. |
2017 |
05/21/18 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject is fine, but it took more than 4 weeks, with no meaningful comments from the editor. Terrible experience. |
2022 |
06/06/22 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
"unlikely to survive our rigorous review process" (two weeks after submission) |
2020 |
10/08/20 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Sent them an article on Tuesday, received notice that I needed to reformat the article two hours later. Then I got a desk reject without any actual explanatory comments two days later, saying that it didn't "fit their format". Now submitted to another journal. Very smooth and fast process. Will definitely submit articles there again in the future. |
2016 |
02/24/17 |
| American Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
02/12/15 |
| American Political Thought |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
4 |
For a fairly new journal, the review process was very stringent. Four reviews of the first paper. Two of the revised manuscript. After R&R, had a second set of minor revisions before the paper was accepted. Well-run journal. (My paper was not remotely Straussian). |
2015 |
02/16/16 |
| American Political Thought |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
4 |
Speedy response. Very useful reviewer comments. Best experience you can ask for from a rejection. |
2015 |
02/04/16 |
| American Political Thought |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject due to inability to find external reviews. Positive internal review |
2019 |
06/08/19 |
| American Politics Research |
Pending |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
2013 |
06/21/14 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Amazingly quick responses |
2014 |
02/06/15 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Efficiently run. |
2016 |
06/26/17 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience. Two good, informative reviews and one decent review. Editor gave a good amount of direction. Fast, quick, and painless |
2020 |
07/07/20 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Useful feedback from reviewers and editor. Relatively quick process. Good experience overall. |
2016 |
12/14/16 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
2013 |
07/21/14 |
| American Politics Research |
Accepted |
3 |
5 |
2 |
This was an all around great experience. Excellent comments. Gaines is super fast and thorough with reviews. It took so long between rounds because I was slow on the first resubmission. Totally on me. |
2014 |
08/22/15 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were specific and constructive. |
2016 |
06/03/16 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
07/09/16 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick turnaround, with 2 referee reports. One of the reviewers recommended that if I were to scrap the entire paper and perform entirely different analyses, I "might" have a shot at a "less prestigious journal." Instead, I sent the same manuscript with very minor revisions to a more prestigious journal than APR, where the paper is now published. |
2017 |
03/19/19 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
03/20/13 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Super fast. Sucks being rejected, but decent reviewer comments. |
2014 |
02/15/15 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
4 months to decision with 2 reviews. 1 very favorable review, 1 favorable but with helpful and constructive suggestions. Editor rejected. |
2019 |
07/09/19 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|
2015 |
03/05/16 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
02/01/17 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers provided thoughtful, helpful, and encouraging feedback. |
2019 |
12/10/19 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2014 |
02/17/15 |
| American Politics Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
One highly positive review, One that wanted me to write on a completely different topic, one who obviously hadn't read with any care at all. Won't submit to this journal again since I can get better quality and more consistent reviews by just passing my manucript around the office suite. |
2016 |
03/02/16 |
| Armed Forces & Society |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Very strange process/priorities. Both reviewers were positive, though one of them made some of the strangest comments I've ever seen. |
2011 |
03/27/13 |
| Armed Forces & Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
One tough but insightful review with detailed evalution and suggestions for improvement. Two single paragraph (four to five sentences) long reviews that called for rejection; both reviewers obviously had not read the manuscript. Effectively, it was a one reviewer process. |
2014 |
07/31/14 |
| Armed Forces & Society |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Brutal and unhelpful reviews. Clearly angry grad students. Not worth it. |
2013 |
03/22/13 |
| Armed Forces & Society |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Unhelpful, negative reviews. |
2014 |
01/05/15 |
| Australian Journal Of International Affairs |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Fantastic experience. Very quick turnaround time. Reviews were very good. Particularly R1 who clearly spent time and effort to read through the manuscript carefully. Would recommend publishing here for asia-pacific focused research. |
2018 |
06/04/18 |
| Australian Journal Of International Affairs |
Ref Reject |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Editor was very helpful: gave useful and constructive comments. One reviewer liked the piece, whereas the other rejected based on grounds that were not within the scope of the paper. Disappointed with the reviewer, but great experience with the journal as a whole. |
2014 |
02/11/15 |
| Australian Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience with the editors. One referee accused me of completely using a methodology in spite of citing 7 articles which used the same methods in the same fashion for which they said in the report was never done - That was frustrating. The other reviewer gave great, lengthy and detailed feedback to help me improve the paper. It is a shame it was reviewed by someone who failed to glace at the bibliography though. |
2014 |
01/07/15 |
| Australian Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
One R&R, one reject, one in-between. Useful comments and apparently qualified and engaged reviewers. |
2014 |
05/10/15 |
| Australian Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk-rejected after five weeks. |
2015 |
01/23/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2019 |
02/21/19 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Professional editors, helpful comments, smooth process. However, it took more than half a year to see the paper published online - this is ridiculous. |
2018 |
06/25/19 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
3 |
Mostly positive experience, time from final submission (after minor revicsions) to decision was a bit long. Good reviews and comments from editor |
2021 |
02/23/22 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
3 |
5 |
4 |
The R&R took longer than expected, but quality quality reviews and editorial comments |
2012 |
03/26/13 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Good experience. Constructive reviews. 1 positive review. 1 on the fence with minor modifications. 2nd reviewer went after it with a vengeance. Editor reject. Nice letter, though. |
2015 |
01/29/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
OK process. |
2016 |
11/07/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Three referee reports: 1 said accept, 1 said r&r, 1 said reject. The editor had read the paper and provided a useful summary of perceived weaknesses of the paper. 2.75 months under review. |
2015 |
11/10/15 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very quick response. Reviewers mainly unhappy with article structure and framing. Felt on this basis that we could have been given a revise and resubmit; however, paper was rejected. Reasons were well explained though so not too miffed. |
2019 |
02/07/20 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Long turnaround for short reviews that either rejected based on a misreading of one of the works cited in the lit review or general misunderstanding of the discipline of political science |
2015 |
07/13/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
A bit slow but helpful reviews |
2016 |
10/27/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very quick response. All three reviewers indicated R&R but editor didn't see the paper as important enough. |
2017 |
11/23/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Really good feedbacks. |
2021 |
05/17/21 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
02/15/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very quick and efficient. 3 good reviews. Editor comments extremely helpful and encouraging. Rejected partly because not generalisable enough (and related issues with theory). |
2018 |
05/01/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
High quality referee reports; overall very good experience. |
2016 |
05/30/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2014 |
02/01/15 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
A bit slow. One reviewer offered reasonable comments, although clearly didn't read the paper carefully (e.g., recommended running a robustness check that is included in the robustness check section). The other reviewer had no understanding of the subfield and literature and simply wanted to insult me. |
2017 |
05/01/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Decent reviews, one reviewer liked the piece others did not. All in all, I thought it was fair and while it could have been a little faster it wasn't abnormally long. |
2014 |
10/09/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
11/22/15 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2019 |
02/22/19 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
18 weeks for decision. Two reviewers seemed to suggest R&R but third didn’t seem to understand research design. Editor decided to reject based on lack of enthusiastic support. |
2020 |
09/13/20 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One short referee report and one long one - not all that helpful but not the worst I've seen |
2013 |
01/15/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
3 reports. All reviewers seemed to like the paper and suggested R&R. Editor rejected based on lack of strong enthusiasm for the paper |
2020 |
05/10/20 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer asking to write a paper with different DV, says question of paper not the right one despite lots of literature on it cited in the manuscript. Second one easy revisions. Editor rejects w/o additional comments. |
2016 |
01/02/17 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Positive comments but to many revisions required to warrant R&R, |
2016 |
06/25/17 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
editor said it is not a good fit for a general political science journal and recommended a more specialized area studies journal |
2022 |
10/07/22 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Response within a week or two. Topic too narrow |
2018 |
03/06/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Year Submitted to Journal: 2015; desk rejected in 2 weeks; no comment provided |
2014 |
05/19/15 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 2 weeks. Too narrow. |
2016 |
06/08/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took a month to desk reject |
2018 |
04/30/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a week, but lovely comments from editor and helpful suggestions for better suited journals. Can't complain! |
2021 |
03/26/21 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within a week--with very unclear editorial comments. |
2014 |
10/09/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within a fair timeframe, given the Covid-19 situation. Mostly a political theory paper, editor's comments quite detailed and to the point I guess, even if I tend to disagree slightly. But that's prolly a matter of the BJPOLS editorial preferences. |
2020 |
04/16/20 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject, normative theory, detailed feedback, took 3 weeks |
2019 |
03/10/20 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 1 month. Very unclear as to why. |
2016 |
11/15/16 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Close to one month for desk reject (due to poor fit). |
2016 |
05/21/17 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2018 |
03/12/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
2 weeks to a desk reject where it was clear that the editor had not read/engaged with the paper at all. |
2017 |
12/27/17 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Sent a manuscript to BJPS. Editor responded that it was too narrow for the journal within two weeks of submission. |
2013 |
06/06/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 2 days for poor fit. |
2014 |
08/13/14 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after about one week. Didn't agree with the editor's comments, but at least it was quick and I was able to move on. |
2019 |
07/27/19 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected three weeks after submission. Editor provided a thorough 5 paragraph response which was surprisingly detailed. Clear that he considered the paper to be good but recommended we try at another (electoral studies) because of subfield focus. Very positive experience despite disappointing outcome |
2018 |
11/22/18 |
| British Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
two weeks for DR w/recommendation of subfield journal |
2018 |
11/12/18 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted 5 months ago. After first inquiry (3 months after submission) was told that they had a problem finding reviewers and that they had now solved the problem. Haven't heard since, and they do not respond to emails. Never again. |
2018 |
05/14/19 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience! Very quick after handing in my R&R - took less than one month. Reviews really improved my paper. |
2017 |
06/06/18 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Nice reviews, although they did not understand the quantitative approach |
2013 |
11/08/13 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Constructive and timely reviews. |
2018 |
05/19/19 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Terrible. 7 months after submission for 2 poor reviews, who did not seem to understand the aims of the paper, and had criticisms which I had already addressed. Journal unresponsive to follow-ups and had no apology for the very long delay to first decision. I will likely not submit here again. |
2018 |
06/26/18 |
| British Journal Of Politics & International Relations |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers suggested an R&R with one saying it was a very good fit for the journal. Editors rejected. |
2017 |
11/06/17 |
| British Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
1 |
Helpful reviewer but slow process - after acceptance following R&R didn't hear from the journal re publication for further 4 months |
2019 |
08/19/20 |
| Cambridge Review Of International Affairs |
Desk Reject |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
Seven months for a desk reject, no replies to e-mails that asked for the status of my manuscript. I had heard good things about CRIA, but it seems that the new editor in chief Olivier Grouille and managing editor Sophie Rosenberg are ruining the journal's reputation. |
2016 |
08/29/16 |
| Communist And Post-Communist Studies |
Pending |
10 |
N/A |
0 |
Avoid it. Eight months passed and nothing. |
2017 |
02/04/18 |
| Communist And Post-Communist Studies |
Pending |
26 |
N/A |
0 |
After 26 months and multiple emails to the editors, I have not received any reviews back. It seems the journal is still in operation, though. |
2014 |
12/06/16 |
| Communist And Post-Communist Studies |
Accepted |
6 |
2 |
1 |
Editor told me that waiting time is 2 years but when I said I want to withdraw my paper, quickly returned. Afterwards, became very supportive,pushed my paper even though one referee rejected. Quite supportive editor, but gets crazy if you put even the abstract of your article to academia.edu. |
2018 |
11/05/20 |
| Communist And Post-Communist Studies |
Accepted |
9 |
N/A |
1 |
Straight acceptance. |
2010 |
03/14/13 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Pending |
21 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted in 4/2013 and still waiting for a response. Very unresponsive editorial office. They don't reply my emails. |
2013 |
01/16/15 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Accepted |
8 |
1 |
2 |
Very slow for the first round of revisions. After that R&R went quite fast with a conditional acceptance after first round of R&R |
2014 |
04/04/16 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Accepted |
11 |
2 |
2 |
Overall a very slow process. It took almost a year to receive the first peer reviews - 2 in total. Both reviewers suggested minor and feasible edits or improvements to the article. It took another 2 months after R&R to get the final acceptance. From then, it took another 5 months to get the proofs of the article, and finally, 3 years after first submission the article has been published. I am guessing this is the new normal with journals? |
2016 |
07/11/19 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Accepted |
5 |
9 |
3 |
|
2013 |
07/30/14 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
2 fair reports, 1 a bit sloppy |
2016 |
07/15/16 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee recommended publish as is, the other reject. R2 disagreed with argument, but didn't say why. Editor rejected. Very slow and unprofessional. |
2015 |
07/17/16 |
| Comparative European Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject, in a week. |
2019 |
01/22/20 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
4 months submission to R&R |
2015 |
12/16/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted on 12/30 |
2015 |
01/20/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2018 |
04/03/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2017 |
02/13/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
The first round (from submission to R&R) took about 5 and 1/2 months, so very average. Very fast second round, though (less than a month from resubmission to acceptance). A very good experience overall: proficient reviewers, responsive editorial team. |
2017 |
02/15/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
This piece was rejected twice on other occasions but finally made it here. |
2014 |
12/03/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
2013 |
02/05/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast, efficient, and very encouraging. Great guidance from the editors. |
2016 |
07/12/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Positive reviews, smooth |
2018 |
11/06/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Took only couple days for the revised version to get accepted |
2012 |
03/21/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
The first round (from submission to R&R) took about 5 and 1/2 months, so very average. Very fast second round, though (less than a month from resubmission to acceptance). A very good experience overall: proficient reviewers, responsive editorial team. |
2017 |
02/15/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
R&R took 3 days! |
2009 |
03/14/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Thorough, informed and fair comments from two reviewers. |
2014 |
06/09/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviews are helpful |
2013 |
08/08/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Two positive reviews, one out of left field. Rejection. |
2016 |
07/09/17 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected by reviews; however, most of their comments were fair and led to me improving the paper and ultimately getting it accepted elsewhere. |
2017 |
12/14/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Two of the reviewers had clearly not read the manuscript. Totally ridiculous. Such a waste of time!!! |
2014 |
07/06/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
I had high expectations in terms of the quality of reviews--given the fact that this is a very competitive journal. It is my impression that the referees chosen did not do justice to the paper. The first one identified what he called a major problem (which could be addressed very easily if given a chance..), and wrote a thrashy critique based on this single issue. The remaining part of his/her comments strongly indicate that this person did not read the paper because all of these issues were addressed in the paper.. The second reviewer did not get the quantitative methodology and criticized the theoretical framework based on this. But the model chosen precisely addresses this problem. Obviously, the editors were not psyched about the paper so it got a reject. What can I say. I feel I have been quite unlucky with the poorly chosen reviewers. But so is life. |
2014 |
12/02/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
2 iff ref reports, rejected in less than 2 months by JC |
2013 |
07/12/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
One positive, one negative, one that clearly hadn't read the paper. Positive review was helpful. |
2014 |
08/15/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
TERRIBLE EXPERIENCE. AVOID. One referee report was negative (that's fair) but was very helpful. The second one was missing. The third report was from another paper, not mine. I wrote to the editor, he kindly sent the paper to another referee, but one who came up criticizing the identification strategy even if unable to pick the difference between a panel and a cross-section... |
2016 |
04/26/17 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
First three reviewers ranged from accept to R&R. The fourth, not so much. |
2015 |
12/19/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Worst experience. Do not waste your time with this journal. |
2020 |
04/21/21 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
2 reviewers recommended minor revisions, third rejected. All were helpful and constructive, even the negative reviewer. |
2016 |
08/19/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2017 |
11/26/17 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Both referees suggested publication after minor revisions. Editor stated reviews were not "strong enough" and that "space was scarce." |
2013 |
06/12/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviewers were enthusiastic accept, easy issues R&R, reject. Editorial rejection that oddly characterized the positive R&R as mixed. |
2015 |
05/16/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Not sure if negative reviewer actually understands what the paper is really about -- comments are either irrelevant or taken out from my discussion section where I discussed potential weaknesses of the paper. The more positive and hopeful review provides very sharp and helpful feedback. |
2015 |
10/08/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very thoughtful, thorough reviews. Some positive, some negative. But very useful. |
2016 |
05/30/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall positive experience, except for 6 week wait from "Reviewers scores are in, awaiting final decision" to reject - that could have been faster. 1 ref recommended R&R, 1 recommended accept with revision, 1 recommended reject, editors said reject due to 'mixed' reviews. 1 reject was by a scholar outside of poli sci which was somewhat frustrating but such is life. Onto the next journal! |
2017 |
04/06/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Great feedback from all three reviewers. It was a conceptual piece with no hypothesis testing, so it was not a great fit for the journal to begin with. But I greatly benefited from the feedback and was able to make a much better paper. |
2016 |
07/26/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall good reviews. Three explicit recommendations for R&R. Editor rejects because he sees no substantial theoretical contribution - wish he had thought of that before sending it out for review, wasting everyone's time. |
2018 |
03/27/19 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
04/22/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Interaction with editors was great, professional, and cordial, but reviewers were more than disappointing. First reviewer clearly did not read the paper for more than 5 minutes and his/her main complaint was the lack of female author being cited in my paper while the second reviewer's comments could have easily been addressed in an R&R. At least it was only a two months turnover. |
2018 |
06/27/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within a week, efficient and professional. |
2014 |
09/20/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 5 days! "Scarcity of space" |
2016 |
06/15/17 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejection within one week. |
2015 |
08/18/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
02/12/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Received the desk rejection in less than a month. No explanations were given, except that their space is "quite scarce" and that they can review less than fifty percent of all submissions. |
2020 |
05/06/20 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
3 days to a desk reject. Super fast. |
2012 |
03/22/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Very quick turnaround, fair comments with desk reject |
2014 |
08/23/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
More than a month for a desk reject seems a bit long, but it was over Christmas. Topic too narrow. |
2017 |
03/06/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
04/28/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in more than 1 month. Besides reference to scarce space, no reasons for rejection. In short, time wasted. |
2018 |
05/21/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
clearing backlog |
2013 |
06/12/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject, but no other comments. |
2018 |
11/21/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a week. |
2020 |
08/14/20 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected with standard editorial comments: work is interesting but not a good fit, space is scarce. |
2014 |
12/07/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject with a kind note from editors about backlog |
2016 |
07/10/16 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk Reject, after one week. |
2016 |
11/28/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Subject was micro-level conflict. Editor rejected stating outside scope of journal |
2011 |
03/14/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
backlog too large |
2013 |
06/29/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after two weeks. The editors read the results wrong. Highly doubt if they read the whole paper. |
2016 |
06/07/17 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 1 week which was find because it was quick What shocked me was the awful quality of the editorial review. Unfamiliar with the literature, got the DV and IV wrong, misquoted results and so didnt understand why the specific country had been selected AND then went on to suggest I should select a case based on the DV.. I doubt they took 10 minutes to look through the paper.. I'm still in shock that this was an editorial review, not some lazy reviewer. |
2021 |
04/21/21 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Super fast desk reject. |
2013 |
09/04/13 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject. Current desk reject rate is 50% according to website, due to backlog. |
2013 |
03/05/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took about 3 weeks |
2014 |
10/10/14 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2018 |
05/31/18 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Unclear whether anyone ever even read my manuscript; I more or less wasted three weeks of my time with them. Their own "editorial manager" never suggested that my manuscript had been viewed by an editor. Don't waste your time with them. |
2014 |
07/06/15 |
| Comparative Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 12 days on the basis of a weak empirical section. Their internal review was thorough. |
2015 |
12/16/15 |
| Comparative Politics |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Solid reviews for an R&R. Back to work! |
2016 |
05/08/17 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Good feedback, turnaround much quicker than I was expecting. |
2017 |
12/11/17 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
2 |
Finally! |
2016 |
11/24/17 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Smooth process. Editorial office was very helpful... |
2018 |
10/07/18 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Mostly helpful comments in first round. Second round accepted without changes (except length). |
2014 |
08/03/15 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Smooth process. This journal is responsive and efficient. Kat's the best! Both reviewers give critical comments, so the R&R is quite a challenge, but both give you a sense that they're there to make the paper a better one. |
2018 |
04/25/19 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
2 |
Super helpful reviews. RR in two months, then 4 months till accepted |
2012 |
06/20/13 |
| Comparative Politics |
Accepted |
6 |
6 |
2 |
|
2010 |
03/13/13 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
5 |
2 |
Basically useful comments, though rejection on second round included new criticisms that could have been addressed if raised in the first round |
2013 |
08/23/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
12/05/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Thorough reviews. 2 against, 1 for, so no contest. Efficient turnaround and the reviewers were clearly very well selected. |
2016 |
03/26/17 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Editor solicited 1 new review for R&R and that review led to rejection. Ouch. |
2009 |
03/14/13 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
both reviewers suggested R&R but had reservations. Good reviews, helpful for next submission. |
2014 |
07/11/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
helpful but very strict comments |
2014 |
01/29/16 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
2 |
Sent an e-mail to editor after 9 months, they responded in two days with reviews, claimed they had been done for months but neglected to send to us. One review was completely blank, the other was not helpful. |
2010 |
08/15/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Helpful reviews, quick process, rejection rather than r&r seemed a bit harsh, but that is life |
2014 |
08/01/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
5 |
2 |
Very detailed reviews. |
2013 |
10/02/13 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
2 |
2 |
R&R at first round of reviews but resubmitted manuscript was rejected. One reviewer liked our revisions, the other didn't |
2018 |
03/02/20 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
01/27/15 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
One accept, one reject-->editor reject with no comments. |
2014 |
12/02/14 |
| Comparative Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
One extremely positive review, one negative review with a couple good points and a couple requests for things already in the paper. Rejected without much comment from editors. |
2016 |
12/06/16 |
| Comparative Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick and professional |
2018 |
06/27/18 |
| Comparative Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
No recommendations or comments from editor; simple form letter rejection. At least it was quick. |
2014 |
07/14/15 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Pending |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Submission date is 2017. Currently waiting on R&R. Useful comments from both referees and editor. |
2016 |
09/05/17 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
2013 |
03/16/14 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
One major R&R and a minor R&R led to accept. Excellent comments from both reviewers and editors. Editors were kind and supportive through the process. |
2017 |
10/10/17 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very professional and valuable feedback. R&R to accept in a short amount of time. |
2016 |
08/01/17 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Accepted |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fast turn round and very useful suggestions. Manuscript appeared online about a month after acceptance. |
2013 |
01/07/14 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected without positive reviews. Submitted without revisions and accepted at ISQ. CMPS is a mess. |
2017 |
10/13/18 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Two positive reviews recommending RnR, one negative review, rejected |
2018 |
03/06/19 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
10/30/14 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2017 |
10/17/17 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
2 R&Rs, 1 rejection |
2018 |
08/21/18 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
poor reviewers, bad experience. |
2017 |
10/16/17 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
Editor said they couldn't find another reviewer and rejected the paper based on one very harsh review. |
2022 |
11/23/22 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Outside the scope of the journal. No additional domments. |
2016 |
01/31/16 |
| Conflict Management And Peace Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected without comment in under a week. Submitted to better journal and got accepted. |
2017 |
10/09/18 |
| Congress and the Presidency |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
2013 |
11/06/13 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Great experience. Exceptional editors. |
2019 |
10/18/19 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Accepted |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2020 |
03/09/20 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Great Experience. Two Reviews. Quick Turnaround |
2015 |
08/13/16 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very thoughtful and constructive critique. Neatly summarised (and expanded by editor himself) |
2013 |
04/13/14 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Editors were very helpful throughout. Got two very thorough and constructive responses from the reviewers |
2015 |
03/01/16 |
| Contemporary Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/25/14 |
| Cooperation And Conflict |
Accepted |
7 |
4 |
2 |
|
2016 |
04/19/17 |
| Cooperation And Conflict |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 4 months. Editor thinks she is on an episode of Mean Girls. |
2022 |
11/23/22 |
| Cooperation And Conflict |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject for length (strict policy). Polite request to resubmit as new entry after trimming. |
2014 |
07/31/14 |
| Democratization |
Pending |
2 |
2 |
2 |
One of the reviews very good, one was OK. Overall good experience! |
2013 |
03/06/14 |
| Democratization |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Two well-considered reviews with helpful suggestions and fast turnaround. A very good experience. |
2020 |
05/10/20 |
| Democratization |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/14/13 |
| Democratization |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Best experience publishing so far: less than 4 weeks from submission til 2 (constructive) referee reports. All in all, less than 5 months between submission and article available online. Very impressed with the journal! |
2014 |
02/03/15 |
| Democratization |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
The management of this journal seems efficient and organized; 2 constructive reviews; editor responds quickly to inquiry; all and all a very good experience. |
2016 |
09/30/16 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick response. Offered R&R, but reviews asked for nonsensical changes (qual reviewers for a quants paper00000000). Decided to send elsewhere rather than ruin the paper. |
2018 |
03/02/20 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Rejection after 8 weeks, but a very nice note from the editor. Reviewer 1 recommended rejection, reviewer 2 recommended acceptance with minor rejections, so editor sent it for a third review, which was negative. All three reviews were very thorough and helpful. Despite the rejection, a good experience. |
2016 |
05/23/16 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick response. Offered R&R, but reviews asked for nonsensical changes (qual reviewers for a quants paper00000000). Decided to send elsewhere rather than ruin the paper. |
2018 |
03/02/20 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick response. Offered R&R, but reviews asked for nonsensical changes (qual reviewers for a quants paper00000000). Decided to send elsewhere rather than ruin the paper. |
2018 |
03/02/20 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Three decent reviews and responsive editor. A little slow, but understandable given COVID. Overall, disappointing outcome but can't complain about the process. |
2020 |
07/27/20 |
| Democratization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers recommended rejection, but for strange reasons that suggested they weren't qualified to review the paper. Quick review time for post-COVID. |
2020 |
06/06/20 |
| Democratization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejection within an hour, editor claimed the manuscript did not advance the topic. |
2021 |
11/27/21 |
| East European Politics And Societies |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
1 |
very unresponsive editorial office |
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| East European Politics And Societies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One good review and one negative. Good feedback. |
2015 |
06/19/17 |
| East European Politics And Societies |
Ref Reject |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor said a single reviewer recommended rejection, but did not send review |
2010 |
03/14/13 |
| Electoral Studies |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Shocked--got a positive R&R with quality reviews after less than two months |
2014 |
10/09/14 |
| Electoral Studies |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
2 |
Submitted in April, and waiting for the results. |
2018 |
08/05/18 |
| Electoral Studies |
Pending |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Very bad experience. Ask not to be with Kaat Smets - she is a very unprofessional editor. |
2020 |
07/08/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Pending |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
Electoral studies and my manuscrirpt soon will soon celebrate their one year anniversary! |
2014 |
03/12/15 |
| Electoral Studies |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Sent out in March, waiting to hear back. |
2013 |
06/19/13 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
9 |
12 |
2 |
9 months from submission to R&R. A year from submitting the R&R to acceptance. Probably won't submit to the journal again given the long wait times. |
2012 |
05/25/14 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Very good experience. |
2018 |
06/05/19 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Very happy with the entire process. Excellent and fast decisions from the editor meant that turn around times were very fast indeed. Thorough and fair reviews from both reviewers. |
2018 |
02/20/19 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
Good experience. Two very constructive reviewers, one more critical (but still useful) which dropped out after the first round. Further relevant comments by remaining two reviewers on the extensively revised manuscript, again constructive. Accepted after this second round of revisions. Am happy with the feedback and feel that it really improved the paper. The wait was around 6 weeks after each of my submissions (for which they also give your 6 weeks). |
2019 |
06/05/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
0 |
very good experience |
2016 |
10/18/16 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Very happy experience. Fast! |
2018 |
06/14/19 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Roughly a year start to finish, 2 rounds. Good reviews that improved the paper. |
2017 |
02/11/18 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
Good experience. Two very constructive reviewers, one more critical (but still useful) which dropped out after the first round. Further relevant comments by remaining two reviewers on the extensively revised manuscript, again constructive. Accepted after this second round of revisions. Am happy with the feedback and feel that it really improved the paper. The wait was around 6 weeks after each of my submissions (for which they also give your 6 weeks). |
2019 |
06/05/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
1 |
3 |
3 |
A bit drawn out but generally good experience. Heard back in four weeks from editor about R&R decision. Two of three reviewers recommended R&R; the editor accepted my request not to send the revised m.s. to the reviewer who recommended reject. Heard back again in three months (a little longer than I would have liked but was spoiled the first time in that it only took one month, as mentioned). Second round of revisions were minor and went to editor only. One month after this, heard back from editor that revisions were fine but paper was too long, accepted conditional on shortening length. Sent back shortened paper and one month later was accepted. |
2014 |
02/17/15 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very fast review process with constant notifications from Elsevier. Helpful reviewer comments and summary from Editor on most import points to address. |
2018 |
03/14/19 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Great experience |
2019 |
03/31/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
Good reviews |
2015 |
03/29/16 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience. Under 2.5 months to first response, R&R with two very constructive and helpful reviews. Less than a month between resubmitting and second response. Under 6 months from first submission to acceptance. |
2017 |
04/26/18 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Great feedback, quality reviews, responsive editor communication. |
2019 |
03/03/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very good experience. Both reviewers had both realistic and extremely helpful suggestions for improvement. |
2020 |
07/03/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Great experience. Two detailed review and editor's comment helped improving the paper. |
2021 |
09/28/21 |
| Electoral Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
2013 |
11/17/13 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected after 8 months with only 2 reviews, one a very length and thoughtful review offering an r&r and the other a succinct and un-helpful reject. Thanks Electoral Studies. |
2017 |
01/18/18 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2020 |
09/05/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
The reviews were completed in only one month and a half. Unfortunatly, it took 2 months before the editor made a decision. I appreciated that the comments were detailed. What I less appreciated was that while the reviews explicitely (R1) and implicitely (R2) suggested that the paper should be published with minor modifications, the editor had a different opinion. The editor, according this his own reading of the comments and of the paper, said the reviewers only said that the paper "had potential", and he added that the revision required were too important to be done as part of R&R. |
2020 |
05/12/20 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
Took 5 or 6 months to get one mediocre review. Not a good experience. |
2013 |
05/07/14 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
We had to wait for five months to receive just one very grouchy review. This reviewer clearly got out of bed on the wrong side. |
2017 |
10/17/17 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
13 |
6 |
2 |
Took over a year for reviewer feedback. Resubmitted and did not hear back for about 6 months. Ultimately pulled the article for consideration after they were not able to find reviewers. Worst experience to date. |
2012 |
04/07/15 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee was absolutely not a political scientist (probably an Economist) who knew nothing about the subject |
2014 |
03/11/15 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
1 |
6 months and the paper got a 1 paragraph rejection. It was fairly obvious that the reviewer didn't actually read the paper at all. This was an absurd experience. Almost like the paper got lost or something. |
2013 |
09/23/13 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Ref reject after two months. Two reviews: not always correct in our opinion, but some parts were useful to improve the paper. |
2016 |
04/12/16 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
I am very dissapointed. I received two papers. That said, referees had no idea about the theory and empirics of the paper, so they could not provide helpful comments. On the contrary, one of them was advertising a piece of paper (I supposed wrote by them) which I have read but I do not find it compelling at all. Very dissapointing of Electoral Studies. |
2016 |
04/29/16 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Frustratingly rejected after R&R. Felt it was an unfair rejection and editor should have mediated more, but process very smooth and editor very polite. Would submit again. |
2019 |
07/26/19 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Took quite long, covid or not. Two fairly positive reviews, one very emotional and negative one. Editor decided to pull the plug. |
2020 |
01/08/21 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
First response took 4 month, but comments were detailed. |
2018 |
04/09/21 |
| Electoral Studies |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
I am very dissapointed. I received two papers. That said, referees had no idea about the theory and empirics of the paper, so they could not provide helpful comments. On the contrary, one of them was advertising a piece of paper (I supposed wrote by them) which I have read but I do not find it compelling at all. Very dissapointing of Electoral Studies. |
2016 |
04/29/16 |
| Electoral Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
The Editor replied in a week, desk-rejecting the paper (quite surprisingly) |
2017 |
10/11/17 |
| Electoral Studies |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Took 2 months to write that my paper is not fit. |
2015 |
11/27/15 |
| Electoral Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast and kind response explaining reasons for the rejection |
2016 |
07/31/16 |
| Europe-Asia Studies |
Ref Reject |
10 |
10 |
1 |
Unprofessional review written by an angry person. Totally waste of time |
2014 |
01/30/15 |
| Europe-Asia Studies |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
1 |
Unresponsive editorial office. Comments were mostly of the "pursue a different research question" type. The reviewer had little knowledge of the topic under investigation. Huge waste of time. |
2013 |
06/20/14 |
| Europe-Asia Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick response (2 months); editors sent me just “selected” parts of the review(s); it looked like one angry and biased reviewer with only superficial understanding of applied method (but with “crucial” methodological concerns); overall, mixed feelings. |
2016 |
06/18/16 |
| Europe-Asia Studies |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
It took Europe-Asia studies 7 weeks to desk reject an article because it was beyond the scope of the publication. I understand that COVID is slowing things down but waiting almost 2 months for a desk reject is frankly ridiculous |
2020 |
11/03/20 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Smooth process. Reviewers engaged. Process improved the manuscript. |
2016 |
05/09/17 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1.5 reviews. Not very helpful or insightful. In online first for a year before publication. |
2012 |
02/14/14 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Helpful and encouraging reviews with good critical comments that improved the paper. Editors followed the reviewers throughout. After R/R reviews were in, acceptance took just 24 hours. |
2014 |
12/05/15 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent reviews, quick process, good outcome. Would submit here again. |
2020 |
05/25/21 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent peer review experience. Just over two months from submission to R&R. Two reviewers, both knowledgeable and thoughtful, provided concise sets of revisions (and the editor additionally summarised the most important points). The revisions were substantial but doable, and made the article much stronger. About 2.5 months from resubmission to final acceptance. |
2019 |
02/04/20 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
1 |
3 |
2 |
Editors helpful, review process fast.Sussex team seems to be going a great job running the journal. |
2016 |
10/10/16 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
1 |
Submitted in 2017. Both reviewers were thorough and helpful; one recommended rejection and one R&R but editors decided on an R&R. Very good experience. |
2016 |
06/19/17 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Very unfair assessment; clear they found at least one reviewer without expertise in my area |
2021 |
05/19/22 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very quick response. Submitted 17th Nov, got decision on 20th Dec. Two very high quality reviewer comments. One gave a major revision decision and the other was hinting towards rejection. Good experience will submit again next time. |
2016 |
12/23/16 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Refs both recommended R&R, editor rejected. Was previous editor who is now at RIS. |
2009 |
06/07/13 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Two detailed, intelligent reviews in less than a month and a half. Exemplary. |
2017 |
11/03/17 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
1 |
1 referee refused to provide open feedback, the other was rambling, contradictory and poorly informed. |
2012 |
03/12/14 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Two negative reviews: one detailed, thoughtful and constructive; the other brief, querulous and pernickety. Turnaround in under six weeks. |
2018 |
10/08/18 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
A few useful comments. However, there were many extremely odd comments that demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. |
2013 |
02/25/14 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Two detailed reviews in under 6 weeks, though only one grasped the argument. (2017, not 2016.) |
2016 |
07/04/17 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Eurotrash editor rejects article for not being IR after publishing article on the same "non-IR" topic the year before. The difference? Eurotrash authors on the one they published. Corrupt scumbag. |
2020 |
05/30/20 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 12 hours. Highly doubt the editor did more than read the abstract. |
2016 |
12/03/15 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2019 |
11/28/19 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in two days. Can't say it was painless but at least it was a quick death. |
2016 |
10/12/16 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
45 days for a desk reject with a hardly-intelligible and unhelpful comment paragraph. |
2022 |
03/15/22 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
4 |
1 |
0 |
Took months to desk reject. Trash editors |
2021 |
08/17/21 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Took too long for simple desk reject, with comments from the editor indicating the article was not read. |
2020 |
03/01/21 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 6 hours. Yes. 6 hours. |
2017 |
02/27/18 |
| European Journal Of International Relations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
2 days to a desk reject; quick |
2015 |
12/22/15 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Only two weeks from acceptance to online manuscript |
2013 |
12/10/13 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Fast turnaround, good referee reports. Mudde has run a tight ship, shame he's leaving |
2017 |
05/17/18 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Second time with them. Excellent experience: generally competent reviewers and smooth editorial process. Definitely recommended. |
2017 |
02/07/18 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
6 |
3 |
2 |
A bit slow but overall open and smooth process |
2012 |
09/28/13 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Very good experience. Competent and helpful reviews, fast editorial process. |
2016 |
09/08/16 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Fast, positive, and constructive review experience |
2017 |
06/28/19 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Although my paper was rejected, I appreciated my experience submitting to EJPR. 3 people reviewed my paper and all provided detailed comments. The whole process took a little bit less than 2 months, which is great. It took a bit longer than a month for the reviews to be completed and only a week for the EIC decision. By comparison, when I submitted to Electoral Studies, it took one months and a half for the reviews (wich is also good), but it stayed literally two months in the hands of the editor before I received the decision. |
2021 |
04/18/21 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Rather slow review process. Despite positive reviews the Editors decided to reject the paper. |
2013 |
05/14/14 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
3 |
helpful r & r; got rejected in the end because one of the reviewers was against publishing it and the editors told me he/she is the top scholar reviewing for the journal |
2014 |
10/24/14 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Took a while because one reviewer ghosted. Editors were communicative and feedback was helpful in the end. |
2020 |
06/02/21 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Took quite a while. Three reviewers that seemed to read as R&Rs but didn’t think it was EJPR material |
2020 |
01/08/21 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Very fast process. However, I have boudbts about reviewers choice. R1 had no clue about stats or theoretical framework and suggested irrelevant studies. R2 was very helpful. |
2016 |
08/03/17 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2015 |
10/04/15 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Very quick process. The comments were not so helpful as I expected, maybe a more detailed report deserved more time than 5 weeks. |
2018 |
06/18/18 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
03/02/17 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Completely arbitrary decision without any clear explanation, let alone justification. Editors do not a good job. |
2016 |
07/27/17 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after 10 days. Not general interested enough. Acceptance rate |
2020 |
12/11/20 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Too many single country manuscripts |
2013 |
03/05/14 |
| European Journal Of Political Research |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Year Submitted to Journal: 2015 |
2014 |
05/19/15 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
2 |
Overall a very positive experience. The editor was quick and responsive in dealing with submissions as well as questions. The reviews were fair and helpful, even though the engagement with the content of the manuscript was a bit superficial and at times rather vage. |
2016 |
07/04/16 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Quickest journal I've dealt with in terms of response times. The reviews were lengthy and helped me improve the paper significantly. |
2016 |
10/23/17 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Really well run journal. EJPT consistently has the quickest response times. The reviews were long, thorough, and helped me improve the paper significantly. One reviewer suggested allowing me an extra 1,000 words to expand my argument, which the editors agreed to. |
2016 |
01/03/18 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Constructive reviews, one of which advocated acceptance. |
2012 |
03/25/14 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Fair and helpful reviews |
2022 |
07/12/22 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
0 |
3 |
2 |
Fair |
2016 |
05/25/17 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick turnaround time. |
2018 |
08/03/18 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One review (which suggested an R&R) was helpful, while the other was not. I appreciated the quickness with which the journal returned the referee reports. |
2015 |
11/27/15 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject with fair comments |
2020 |
02/25/20 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2021 |
10/04/21 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject |
2020 |
03/09/20 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject with detailed comments |
2020 |
10/23/20 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject |
2019 |
01/30/20 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Decision two days after submission. 8% acceptance rate. Will try with other papers. |
2020 |
01/30/20 |
| European Journal of Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
This seems like a very well-run journal |
2023 |
03/07/23 |
| European Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Immediaty desk reject. |
2017 |
02/12/18 |
| European Union Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
3 |
4 |
Thorough reviews. Required detailed memo to respond to suggestions. Helpful editorial team |
2012 |
10/01/13 |
| European Union Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Excellent and fast process. Revierwers (and editor) provided explicit instructions and what was required. A lot of post-acceptance editorial guidance from journal |
2019 |
02/29/20 |
| European Union Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Was impressed by the no. and length of reviews. Two reviews were extremely detailed and very helpful. Article was rejected b/o one referee who did not like the statistical models. Overall it seemed a fair process. |
2014 |
04/13/15 |
| European Union Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Decision in 32 days. |
2016 |
04/04/16 |
| European Union Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast and thorough. Their submission process is a nightmare, however, as all papers must follow detailed EUP formatting even before th decision to accept/reject is taken. |
2015 |
07/27/15 |
| European Union Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected quickly, no other comments. |
2019 |
03/09/19 |
| Foreign Affairs |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected after 6 days. |
2014 |
07/23/14 |
| Foreign Affairs |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected after 6 days. |
2014 |
07/23/14 |
| Foreign Affairs |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
No decision after a month-only after our follow-up email to email the editors, we got a rejection email. |
2019 |
06/11/19 |
| Forum-A Journal Of Applied Research In Contemporary Politics |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2018 |
08/05/19 |
| Forum-A Journal Of Applied Research In Contemporary Politics |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
7 months for two reviews that were completely unhelpful. Worst experience of any journal to date. I won't be submitting there again. |
2019 |
08/05/19 |
| Geopolitics |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent experience. Constructive and detailed reviews |
2016 |
10/27/16 |
| German Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 sparse good review, 1 expansive half good and half misguided review. Editor was explicit about revise expectations. Great experience. |
2019 |
09/13/19 |
| German Politics |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
1 |
Contacted the editors after five months. They friendly replied that only one reviewer responded. This one review was rather negative (but valuable!). Editors gave us the choice: either wait for a second review, or just get rejected based on the one received and be able to move on. We moved on. |
2017 |
10/17/17 |
| German Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2019 |
05/31/19 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Accepted |
6 |
1 |
3 |
Helpful report, but the first round took much longer than they had hoped for. |
2011 |
06/09/13 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fastest review I ever had. Refs were brutal but fair and very insightful. Overall a very good experience, despite the rejection. |
2014 |
01/23/15 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
10/30/14 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a couple weeks saying not a good fit for style and content. Yet the paper was written in response to one published already, which suggests otherwise. Either they didn't read closely, or they couldn't be bothered to provide a more complete explanation. Both are equally annoying. |
2016 |
06/09/17 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a couple weeks saying not a good fit for style and content. Yet the paper was written in response to one published already, which suggests otherwise. Either they didn't read closely, or they couldn't be bothered to provide a more complete explanation. Both are equally annoying. |
2016 |
06/15/17 |
| Global Environmental Politics |
Desk Reject |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Two rounds of R&R. Rejected by the editors despite very positive assessment by the reviewers. Horrible experience |
2021 |
05/26/22 |
| Global Governance |
Accepted |
3 |
5 |
2 |
One fair and helpful reviewer, one who didn't make much sense. Very long time between turnarounds. |
2018 |
02/12/20 |
| Global Governance |
Accepted |
6 |
4 |
1 |
Reviewer feedback was helpful, but the paper was initially under review for 6 months. Furthermore, after making the (relatively minor) updates at the request of the R&R, it took the reviewers an additional 4 months to re-evaluate and approve—which is way too long in my opinion. It was exactly 10 months from submission to acceptance. |
2019 |
03/20/20 |
| Global Governance |
Accepted |
6 |
4 |
1 |
Reviewer feedback was helpful, but the paper was initially under review for 6 months. Furthermore, after making the (relatively minor) updates at the request of the R&R, it took the reviewers an additional 4 months to re-evaluate and approve—which is way too long in my opinion. It was exactly 10 months from submission to acceptance. |
2019 |
03/20/20 |
| Global Governance |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
R&R exactly 3 months from submission. 1 review useful and constructive and obviously from someone with detailed knowledge of the subject. The other review didn't say much - but didn't ask for much either. Final acceptance less than 2 weeks after resubmitting. |
2018 |
01/09/19 |
| Global Governance |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
1 |
After many emails, including one in which I threatened to withdraw the manuscript, I finally got a rejection after 1 YEAR, with ONE very short and useless review. Never again. |
2018 |
11/26/19 |
| Global Governance |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
They kidnapped my manuscript for 8 months and then refused to communicate with me. Totally unacceptable. |
2016 |
03/02/18 |
| Global Governance |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews brief yet helpful and accurate--but almost 6 months for two short reviews? Give me a break. |
2016 |
08/30/17 |
| Global Governance |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
0 |
Terrible experience. Editors clearly don't respect authors. Stay away. |
2016 |
04/20/17 |
| Governance-An International Journal Of Policy And ... |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Good reviews, fast process |
2012 |
05/16/13 |
| Governance-An International Journal Of Policy And ... |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
quite fast processing; all three reviewers suggested r&r; editor decided rejection |
2013 |
01/05/14 |
| Governance-An International Journal Of Policy And ... |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Very quick response. Not a good fit for the journal. |
2013 |
05/18/13 |
| Governance-An International Journal Of Policy And ... |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected because the editor didn't like the *structure* (not fit nor substance) of the paper. Very odd experience. Will not submit there again. |
2018 |
01/29/20 |
| Government And Opposition |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Very positive experience. Relatively fast, helpful people, good reviews. |
2016 |
01/09/17 |
| Government And Opposition |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
2013 |
12/05/14 |
| Government And Opposition |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
It takes some time, especially between the last resubmission and the acceptance notice. However, very good, useful comments that considerably improved the quality of the paper. |
2017 |
03/01/18 |
| Government And Opposition |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
2 |
felt a bit lenghty, especially the time between R&R and acceptance. Reviewer 2's comments a bit strange and outdated. Editorial team very friendly and helpful though. |
2015 |
05/19/16 |
| Government And Opposition |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Received an R&R, very helpful comments, ultimately decided to not resubmit due to difficulty addressing reviewers concerns. |
2012 |
04/07/15 |
| Government And Opposition |
Ref Reject |
1 |
4 |
2 |
Helpful and quick editor, extremely slow reviews, ref reject with some helpful comments, but reject also clearly referenced reviewers disagreement with my research findings based on their own research, or maybe just "double blind review expert opinion", because I've never read their alternative depictions of reality in any publication, and they didn't come with a methods section like mine did... |
2016 |
03/17/17 |
| Government And Opposition |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Harsh but fair comments. |
2014 |
11/03/14 |
| Government And Opposition |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected. Editors now want manuscripts with a more comparative approach rather than case studies |
2016 |
03/22/16 |
| History of Political Thought |
Accepted |
11 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2019 |
07/14/20 |
| History of Political Thought |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
One ref said reject, the other said accept after revisions. |
2011 |
03/25/14 |
| History of Political Thought |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2020 |
09/10/20 |
| Interest Groups and Advocacy |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
2 |
https://www.gangboard.com/crm-training/salesforce-admin-training |
2016 |
10/03/16 |
| Interest Groups and Advocacy |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| International Affairs |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
The best EIC I have ever seen. |
2021 |
10/17/22 |
| International Affairs |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
4 |
By far the best experience with a journal I've ever had. They provided 4 extremely constructive reviews within 2 months and a very quick turn around on the revisions decision. Journal staff is very communicative and helpful. |
2017 |
03/02/18 |
| International Affairs |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Best experience I've had. Incredibly helpful editorial team |
2022 |
02/12/23 |
| International Affairs |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Great experience: Very quick, with helpful referee comments. |
2019 |
10/11/19 |
| International Affairs |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Extreme quick turnover, two R&Rs from reviewers but editor rejected. Helpful comments, advice on different journals, good experience. |
2020 |
03/01/21 |
| International Affairs |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Two weeks to desk reject. Editor provided some feedback and suggested alternative journals. Comments were based on the introduction only, so I suspect that's all he read - but obviously I needed to frame and sell the piece better. |
2019 |
01/21/19 |
| International Interactions |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Excellent reviews, efficient editors, highly recommend |
2012 |
12/23/13 |
| International Interactions |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
2013 |
12/23/13 |
| International Interactions |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
Good experience, editor very helpful and carefully prioritized comments of reviewers |
2013 |
10/29/13 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful feedback.7 Weeks under review. |
2015 |
12/03/15 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Thorough, helpful, and surprisingly fast. |
2010 |
07/02/13 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Incredibly efficient, really useful and detailed reviewer comments. |
2015 |
01/29/16 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast response, very helpful and polite reviews |
2013 |
07/01/13 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Two lukewarm supportive comments led to the decision of rejection. The comments were generally helpful, although one reviewer didn't seem to read the whole manuscript. |
2013 |
03/15/14 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast, but very unprofessional referees. |
2016 |
07/12/16 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
very fast; very helpful reviews |
2013 |
07/05/13 |
| International Interactions |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast. 1 modestly helpful and 2 very unhelpful reviews that clearly indicated that the reviewers didn't really read the manuscript. |
2016 |
03/18/17 |
| International Journal Of Press-Politics |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Nice reviews |
2019 |
12/17/19 |
| International Organization |
Accepted |
2 |
12 |
2 |
Supportive though very critical. Persistence was key to the positive outcome |
2013 |
02/12/17 |
| International Organization |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Very helpful but challenging reviews. Editor also provided very useful directions and suggestions. |
2012 |
09/03/13 |
| International Organization |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
2012 |
05/24/13 |
| International Organization |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Both reviewers recommended R&R. |
2011 |
03/15/13 |
| International Organization |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
two R&Rs |
2011 |
02/06/14 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee recommended reject and one R&R. |
2012 |
03/14/13 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Not as useful as I would have hoped. One reviewer seemed to have an ax to grind, and I'm not convinced read it. The other positive review had some good comments. Thought editor's note was useless to be honest. Odd overall |
2014 |
05/09/15 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee recommended reject and one R&R. |
2012 |
03/14/13 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One useless review, one useful, if over the top in its criticism |
2016 |
03/02/17 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
1 |
2 |
2 |
one referee recommended submitting article to another journal, one suggested R&R - editors rejected |
2014 |
02/18/15 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Just over 2 months to rejection. |
2012 |
03/16/13 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee recommended minor revisions. One referee recommended sending to another journal. |
2012 |
03/14/13 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
09/22/14 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick response, thorough and thoughtful comments |
2018 |
04/22/18 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One recommended R&R, one reject, editor rejected. |
2019 |
04/30/19 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Refs split on R&R, ed team rejected. Both reviewers provided helpful comments. |
2010 |
06/07/13 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
|
2016 |
07/30/16 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Excellent, thorough reviews, despite adverse outcome. New team choosing reviewers well apparently (though also really tough to get R&R'd). |
2017 |
10/21/17 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Two critical reviews, one helpful, one less so (reviewer did not read carefully). Overall, quick and efficient |
2014 |
09/24/14 |
| International Organization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
A pretty quick response. One reviewer provided very helpful / constructive comments. |
2016 |
05/09/16 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
New editorial team stated they do not publish single country case studies |
2017 |
08/21/18 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
3 weeks for a desk reject. Hohum. (2017 not 2016) |
2016 |
04/18/17 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in one week. Published without revisions at another good IR journal. |
2012 |
02/14/14 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in two weeks. |
2014 |
05/21/15 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within a few days but the editor read the paper and gave some good comments. Was almost like a referee report. |
2015 |
01/21/16 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Year Submitted to Journal: 2015; editor provided some comments |
2014 |
05/19/15 |
| International Organization |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after one day. |
2018 |
08/26/18 |
| International Political Science Review |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
The reviewer selection was awful. The reviewers had no competence in understanding quantitative analysis, gave irrelevant feedback. I don't know how reviewer selection is made here but do not submit if you have a quant paper. |
2022 |
06/08/22 |
| International Political Science Review |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Two rounds of RnR. Had the usual Reviewer 2 issues. Editor knew what comments were relevant and clearly mentioned what needed to be revised and what could be ignored. Tough but fair process. |
2013 |
05/26/15 |
| International Political Science Review |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
detailed and constructive comments |
2014 |
01/29/16 |
| International Political Science Review |
Accepted |
4 |
5 |
4 |
2 RnRs. Editor was very clear about what to focus on the reviewers' comments. |
2014 |
06/01/15 |
| International Political Science Review |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Two rounds of R&R and long process (total of 13 months), but worth it. First round of R&R: three reviewers, all constructive comments, editors gave opportunity to revise, even though comments were not all-positive. Second round of R&R: two reviewers were unresponsive, so editors solicited one additional reviewer. Again helpful comments. Manuscript accepted in the end. Fair process, helpful editors and editorial assistent. |
2016 |
10/19/17 |
| International Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviewer 1 didn't like the paper at all; Reviewer 2 was enthusiastic; Reviewer 3 critical. However, useful and detailed comments, in particular from Rev.1 |
2017 |
10/11/17 |
| International Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Good experience with editors. Extremely efficient. One reviewer recommended acceptance while the other was not so keen, but gave extremely helpful feedback. Definitely worth submitting here again. |
2014 |
02/11/15 |
| International Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
0 |
5 |
4 |
Worst ever. Round1: Minor Revision. Round2: Reject. Why? One of two reviewers from R1 was unavailable, so 2 completely new reviewers are invited. One of them positive, one of the highly negative based on garbage recommendations. He actually suggests that an argument offered by Dani Rodrik as "downright silly". Editor says she cannot go on with a negative and three positive reviews. so: reject. total process: 1 year. What an unprofessional journal |
2017 |
11/22/18 |
| International Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Received major revisions which were actually a reject: editor asked to make a revision that was clearly impossible to perform. Two out of three reviewers mildly positive, third one more critical but still not suggesting to reject. Frustrating outcome. |
2018 |
03/14/19 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
New editorial team is great. Very quick turnaround, helpful reviews. |
2017 |
02/19/18 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
One ref helpful, other not so much. Ed. followed their input. Very professional. |
2011 |
06/07/13 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
7 |
6 |
3 |
Two supportive R&Rs on round one, quite straightforward, then first Referee went on sick leave and was sent to a new Referee as a new submission (post-revisions) in month 13 and rejected. Editors were completely disengaged. |
2012 |
07/31/14 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Very helpful reviewers. Clearly read the article and knew the field well. |
2013 |
11/01/13 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer gave a one paragraph response. The other gave a very detailed and useful report. Both asked for revisions to be published but editors rejected because of severe pressure on space. |
2018 |
12/03/18 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
One obnoxious and misplaced, one more constructive and encouraging. |
2013 |
08/20/13 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Very thorough and helpful reviews. One reject and one significant revisions, but the editors decided to reject. Positive experience. |
2014 |
11/18/14 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The journal conducts suspicious review procedures. They refused to send my articles to reviewers citing very minor concerns. I fixed their concerns within a day and submitted to another journal (a solid one with IF of around 1.00). The piece was accepted after a few minor revisions.. |
2017 |
04/10/18 |
| International Political Sociology (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
decision clearly based on only cursory read of manuscript |
2017 |
12/14/17 |
| International Politics |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
03/12/13 |
| International Politics |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted my manuscript in March 2015, got a quick confirmation and, 6 months later, was informed that my article would be dealt with in the october 2015 editors' session. Never heard from them again. After calling (early February 2016), they seemed to be sorry and promised me a quick answer. Again: Never heard from them again. Thinking about withdrawing |
2015 |
02/22/16 |
| International Politics |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
One brief confirmation of receipt from editor, reviews never received despite following up. Withdrawn by author after 4 months with no response by editor, even to say it's still under review. Signs of serious disfunction. |
2014 |
07/31/14 |
| International Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Positive, Detailed, Reviews. Very Quick and Painless R&R. |
2014 |
01/05/15 |
| International Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
Helpful comments from both reviewers, fair processing time |
2019 |
10/14/19 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
fine comments. Very responsible staffs. First round screening very slow though |
2016 |
12/27/16 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
R&R decision within a week. super fast. Good editor comments |
2013 |
01/20/14 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Ref Reject |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Took extremely long to even get reviews. The quality of the ref reports were poor to be honest. R2 rec major revision, R1 rec reject. R1's reviews were riddled with spelling mistakes and also a lack of attention to the theory parts. Not such a good experience. |
2018 |
06/04/18 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Good turnaround compared to other journals. Two reviewers didn't get it. However, one reviewer was brilliant. Best feedback of my life, never felt so understood and (intellectually) vindicated. This sort of feedback is worth gold. |
2016 |
08/30/17 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Ref Reject |
0 |
3 |
0 |
Reviews were done quickly but extremely poor quaility. Probably won't submit here in the future. |
2018 |
06/06/18 |
| International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took them a month to desk reject this. |
2015 |
07/29/15 |
| International Security |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Wonderful experience. Highly professional outfit. Great feedback. |
2015 |
08/19/16 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Tough reviews. |
2016 |
10/17/16 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers recommended R/R. One had good, useful feedback. |
2014 |
06/09/15 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
One really good review, two useless ones |
2013 |
03/07/14 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected after 7 months. Reviewer was very harsh. Completely underestimated paper's contributions. |
2022 |
11/23/22 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
2.5 months. Helpful reviews, although one was cranky. Feel sorry for his/her students. Editor professional. |
2015 |
09/04/15 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two good reviews, one not so much |
2013 |
02/14/14 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Very fast response; reviewer provided helpful and extensive comments. Will likely submit here again in the future. |
2015 |
04/21/16 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One R&R, one reject. |
2013 |
03/21/13 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One recommended reject, one R&R |
2012 |
03/15/13 |
| International Security |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Decision in just under a month. One lengthy and exceptionally helpful review; one shorter and much less perceptive one. |
2018 |
08/26/18 |
| International Security |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Speedy turnaround. Editorial screening very much a lottery. |
2018 |
04/23/19 |
| International Security |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Not a traditional security topic. Quick response. |
2013 |
10/28/13 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Accepted |
1 |
6 |
2 |
Very fast and reliable peer reviews. |
2011 |
06/07/13 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
09/12/14 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience. The new editorial team is quick and on their toes. |
2016 |
10/12/16 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Very helpful and quick! Great reviews! One referee suggest r&r, but editor rejected. Nevertheless, good experience. |
2017 |
11/01/17 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
7 |
3 |
3 |
|
2010 |
06/08/13 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Actually, this was an editor reject after two positive R&Rs from reviewers. Editor decided reviewer feedback wasn't meaty enough, and overruled reviewers; very strange |
2016 |
06/29/16 |
| International Studies Perspectives (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
2 |
1 |
0 |
The EIC seems to be an arrogant shithead |
2021 |
08/17/21 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Pending |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 month from submission to R&R. To fair, informed, tough reviews. |
2016 |
08/23/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Thorough, informed reviews. Positive experience. |
2012 |
06/20/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Three rounds of review, helpful reviews. Very picky on details. |
2012 |
04/16/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Good experience with the reviewers and editor; their comments helped the manuscript to come out very well and editor was especially attentive to detail. Slow to online first though. |
2017 |
09/22/18 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Exceptionally fast reviews and editor response from the Indiana team. |
2012 |
01/07/14 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Went through two rounds of revisions before acceptance. Very useful comments from the reviewers and editors; very clear what needed to be done and good advice on how to approach the revisions. Great experience overall, particularly working with the editors. |
2015 |
01/14/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
very good experience. R1 recommended R&R and the other rejection. Team of editors overruled R2 and gave me an R&R; R2 then recommended publication in the 2nd round. Thankful for the team of editors that gave me a chance to convince R2. Only caveat: it took around 8-9 months from acceptance to "online first" |
2015 |
05/23/17 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
good experience. tough but helpful two reviews. the editor was helpful. overall, good experience. |
2019 |
08/07/20 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
6 weeks. 1 R&R recommend, 2 rejection recommend. |
2016 |
05/03/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Cleary selected unqualified reviewers. Useless comments |
2013 |
07/10/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
R1, several unfair criticisms (imho), recommended reject. R2, careful reading and genuinely helpful comments, recommended major revision. ISQ only gives R&Rs for articles needing minor revisions. |
2013 |
07/21/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick response but typical lazy/cranky reviewers. One with helpful comments that will benefit the paper (thanks!), one that didn't understand the method but incorrectly accused paper of making several methodological faux pas, and one that just insisted they didn't buy the argument but provided no real evidence why. So, a typical day at the office. |
2000 |
06/30/15 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
10/30/14 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two detailed, helpful and constructive reviews both recommending R&R. One negative and not very helpful. Helpful synthesis of reviews by editor and rejection based on the assessment that revisions needed were too major for journal to proceed. Fair decision. |
2018 |
10/26/18 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Ref. rejected. All noted that the contribution was good but the execution was underdeveloped. All reviewers gave helpful comments for improvement and possibly breaking up the project into smaller and more manageable chunks around the key puzzle. |
2014 |
12/02/14 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
07/13/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Extremely nice and helpful reviews. |
2012 |
03/22/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
5 months for an empirical paper. Two very helpful reviews and one four page review written by a grad student who focused on methods, didn't understand them, focused on theory, didn't understand it, and castigated the entire thrust of the paper - and didn't understand it. |
2021 |
09/08/21 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
04/02/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very confusing experience. Two reviewers recommended R&R, other was concerned about fit and seemed unclear about what he/she didn’t like about the paper. Editor choose to reject. Second rejection like this from this journal in three months. |
2015 |
01/04/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected on the basis of two pretty useless reviews. 2017 submission. |
2016 |
07/03/17 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Negative experience. One reviewer was marginally helpful, but the other clearly had not read the paper and rejected it in a nonsensical paragraph. Editor provided no additional feedback. |
2017 |
09/07/18 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2010 |
03/13/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
took approx 2.5 months. Very useful and positive feedback from one reviewer who recommended r&r. The other reviewer took issue with how I was citing her or her coauthor's work, had a few minor remarks, made no recommendation either way. overall review was more positive than r&r letters I've had, but r1 comments were polite and useful for submission elsewhere. |
2013 |
04/29/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround. Three reviews that were helpful, and tentatively positive, but added up to fairly major revisions, so editor rejected. |
2013 |
07/17/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick rejection; extensive feedback; can't complain |
2018 |
01/08/19 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Process was quick, reviews were helpful. |
2012 |
08/15/14 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
reviews not helpful -- did not seem to know literature. Editorial letter also did not match reviewer comments. Very unusual experience. |
2013 |
11/04/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Two thorough reviews from people obviously very familiar with the data sources and theory fields. One was very helpful and encouraging, one disagreed with me on a matter of data selection. Would definitely submit again. Great experience. |
2016 |
12/31/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Very quick review process (1.5 mos from submission to rejection). Received helpful reviews. |
2014 |
10/26/14 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer wrote a very short but very positive review that recommended publication. The other was longer and critical but constructive, recommending rejection. |
2013 |
06/06/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewers were supportive, editor not so much. |
2009 |
07/02/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Recommended submission elsewhere |
2013 |
06/06/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in a week. |
2016 |
10/26/16 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejection indicating that they do not currently accept research notes, though they will accept research notes "soon." |
2013 |
11/01/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
A very impressive desk reject--editor wrote a thoughtful response to that indicated that they'd clearly read the manuscript and felt it wasn't a good fit. All in all, as good a rejection as possible: quick, efficient, and with suggestions for other places to submit. |
2014 |
06/30/15 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 10 days based on fit, proposed to transfer the submission to another ISA journal. |
2022 |
03/08/22 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after two weeks. Published by a higher impact journal unchanged next year. Indiana ed. team sure can pick winners. |
2010 |
06/07/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in less than a week; nice, useful comments from editor |
2013 |
12/04/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Single case study not appealing to ISQ's audience |
2013 |
04/18/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 8 days; ISQ no longer considers formal papers without a significant empirical component. |
2013 |
03/17/13 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejection within 5 days. |
2014 |
06/30/15 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
less than to months to reviews. Desk reject, without however an indication as to what the reviewers recommended. Reviews were critical but helpful, though as often missing some of the main arguments. |
2020 |
12/11/20 |
| International Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
10/29/14 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted in May 2015. The status was "under review" and then changed to "pending decision" after 60 days |
2014 |
07/02/15 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
10/28/13 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Reviewed by tough but helpful reviewers who clearly wanted to improve the arguments. Editors gave clear advice on what to focus on. Finished article much more coherent than original submission, so a very positive process. |
2018 |
05/19/19 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Accepted |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Accepted after one round of revisions. Good comments made it a better paper ultimately. New editorial team seems on the ball. |
2015 |
01/22/16 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
2014 |
05/07/15 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
What an awful processs-took 4.5 months, with a rejection and all criticism was geared toward a quantitative paper, which this wasn't. Extremely rude and unnecessary language used by one reviewer, editors never responded to letter sent to them pointing these issues out. |
2015 |
02/14/16 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Two detailed referee reports |
2016 |
11/10/16 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Excellent comments with detailed suggestions from reviewers who are clearly experts on the topic. Editors added notes on what to focus on for revision. |
2018 |
01/16/19 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Submitted several years ago (10 weeks to R&R). Recently submitted a new paper (3.5 months to reject). As typically the case, seems to be 1 bad apple reviewer each time. However, editors are great and I get very useful feedback. |
2016 |
05/04/17 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
3 weeks for a desk reject. |
2016 |
12/04/16 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject. No reasons mentioned. |
2022 |
11/23/22 |
| International Studies Review (ISA) |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected for "fit," but at least done quickly. |
2015 |
09/20/15 |
| International Theory |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Bad experience. After several weeks of my manuscript just sitting in their system, I had to write them for them to send it to an editor. They promised they'd make an editorial decision within a week. Nothing happened. I tried to retract the manuscript and had to wait another week to receive an answer. Would not recommend submitting here. |
2019 |
09/20/19 |
| International Theory |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
|
2014 |
06/02/15 |
| International Theory |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
very fast turnaround |
2012 |
02/06/14 |
| International Theory |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
2014 |
04/14/15 |
| International Theory |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2017 |
04/27/18 |
| International Theory |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
Never again in my life will I submit to this journal. Incredibly slow to decision and then based on only two reviews, one of which was particularly poorly done (grad student?). |
2017 |
10/03/18 |
| International Theory |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Slow turnaround, and the journal was unresponsive to queries about the manuscript's status. When the decision finally arrived, the reviews contained some helpful comments, but the editors did not seem to grasp that the argument was primarily normative. |
2017 |
08/26/18 |
| International Theory |
Desk Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
2 conditional accepts + 1 outright accept = editor reject anyway |
2011 |
04/15/13 |
| International Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within 10 days due to fit. At least they were quick about it. |
2014 |
10/19/14 |
| International Theory |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
6 weeks for a desk reject. 2017 submission. |
2016 |
09/10/17 |
| Japanese Journal Of Political Science |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
Good experience. It was a Japan specific paper so it fit well. Frist Reviewer was excellent second didn't spend nearly as much time. Good process. Inoguchi is doing a decent job. |
2016 |
09/02/16 |
| Japanese Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
The editor suggested I should send the paper to an Australian journal |
2014 |
02/12/15 |
| Jcms-Journal Of Common Market Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
2013 |
01/11/14 |
| Jcms-Journal Of Common Market Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
4 |
First answer took a bit longer than expected, but other than that a good process overall. Editor was generally hands off, but eventually helpful |
2018 |
06/09/19 |
| Jcms-Journal Of Common Market Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
useful feedback from reviewers |
2020 |
02/15/21 |
| Journal of Church and State |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Really great reviewer comments: helped to improve the piece tremendously. Efficient editorial team. |
2014 |
02/11/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Good review process. But article was in online first for a year. |
2011 |
02/14/14 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
5 |
5 |
2 |
Conditionally accepted after 4 months following submission of first R&R. Unconditionally accepted after an additional month and minor R&R. |
2011 |
03/14/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Pretty quick turn around to R&R. Good substantive comments by reviewers. Some suggestions not possible with the data, and one reviewer did not seem to understand the methods used. Overall, great experience. |
2015 |
12/30/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/13/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
2011 |
06/20/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
3 |
5 |
2 |
Second round after R&R took a while, but accepted in the end. Stoked! |
2020 |
11/27/21 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
10 |
6 |
3 |
|
2011 |
03/13/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/12/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
0 |
4 |
2 |
two R&R rounds. Comments mostly helpful, but some revisions were impossible. Editor seemed to agree and the second R&R led to accept. |
2015 |
10/13/16 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
2012 |
05/03/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
2011 |
03/15/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Positive reviews but editor rejected anyway. |
2016 |
07/12/16 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
1 R&R (and helpful comments), 2 Reject (unhelpful). I sent it out basically to test the waters, and obviously not surprised at the reject decision (given two reject recommendations). But surprised at the quality of reviews. At least one of them was clearly not a conflict person. They also didn't seem to even have read the paper or even looked at the regression table! Asking me to control for things that I already control for etc. Oh well. |
2018 |
05/10/19 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
07/03/14 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
2 |
JCR needs a new editor. Every time I've submitted the last year or so reviews take 4-5 months and they aren't very good. Editor doesn't get a third review when one reviewer clearly says it should be accepted and the other reviewer writes nonsense in barely intelligible English. Articles found good homes but the JCR wait didn't help |
2019 |
03/03/20 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
1 R&R (and helpful comments), 2 Reject (unhelpful). Obviously fair decision by the editor. Low quality reviews. Some non-sensical comments. Some comments clearly showing they didn't read the paper carefully (asking for control variables that are already controlled for). Sent to a higher ranked journal, and accepted (though I did make important changes before sending out again) |
2018 |
03/26/20 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Although both reviewers were favourable, Editor rejected for 3 reasons: (i) methods were not innovative enough (ii) no reviewer stated it made cutting edge theoretical contribution and (iii) the link to conflict behavior was weak |
2016 |
05/29/17 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
11/20/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
Seemed a bit long, but fair reviews |
2012 |
12/24/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
1 |
Submitted in mid March 2015. Only got 1 very critical/angry/lazy review. Expected more from JCR |
2014 |
07/10/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2010 |
07/02/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
1 very constructive and positive review. One lazy, negative review that harped on the absence of (I suspect) the reviwer's article in the lit. review. |
2016 |
11/09/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Fairly quick response. 1 R&R, one reject. |
2015 |
12/09/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Not the outcome I wanted, but very good feedback from reviewers and understandable decision by the editor. |
2019 |
03/02/20 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One very constructive, helpful, and postivie review. The second review was the opposite. |
2014 |
06/30/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Two solid though challenging reviews but editor said the support wasn't strong enough for publication. |
2015 |
11/09/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Same story. Rev1: publish. Rev2: reject. Editor: reject. All three clearly didn't read the paper. Old-fashioned unfair peer review, where editor does not really make his own decisions or provide arguments to support decisions. Rogue reviewers know that and can veto whatever paper they don't like or compete against. Won't submit anything there or review until things progress. Encourage everyone to do the same. The journal does damage to the discipline. |
2019 |
04/03/20 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer recommended accept, the other "dramatic revisions." Guess editor went with the latter, but the text of editor comments was word-for-word to an earlier rejection (for a different article) at JCR.) |
2015 |
11/10/15 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
10/03/13 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after a month for low N, despite the N being the population, not a sample. |
2020 |
06/05/20 |
| Journal Of Conflict Resolution |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewer reports supportive but Editor felt link to conflict too tenuous. |
2017 |
11/29/17 |
| Journal of Development Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Took a long time to the first response, but after revisions the article was accepted within a month. |
2019 |
08/14/20 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
First response after 6 weeks, reviews were helpful |
2013 |
02/14/14 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
2018 |
10/02/18 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Smooth and relatively fast process. |
2020 |
08/12/20 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Pretty fast first decision in 6 weeks. Editors run a very tight ship. Revised decision with 3 weeks of sending it off. Demanding but helpful reviewer reports. Really good experience |
2020 |
07/22/20 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Fast and helpful feedback. One reviewer was rude and did not know/care about stats. Editors were very helpful and responsive. |
2013 |
03/19/14 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Very helpful and nice reviews. Editors are great! |
2013 |
07/22/14 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 24 hours |
2020 |
10/20/20 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within 24 hours because of poor fit. I disagreed with the editors but the speed of their response was greatly appreciated. |
2018 |
11/14/19 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Paper was out of journals scope. Rejected within 3 days |
2012 |
04/28/13 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a couple of days for lack of fit. Wrong call in my opinion, but hey, it's their journal. And I did appreciate the speed of the response. |
2018 |
07/14/18 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
The paper was reject by editor after 2 days, with comment: "the topic is just too narrow and specialised for most JEPP readers" |
2016 |
02/14/17 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in less than 24 hours. Topic apparently didn't fit the journal's audience. Was advised to send manuscript elsewhere. Appreciated the speed, they didn't waste my time. |
2018 |
11/05/18 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject, but quick, within 1 week. |
2016 |
11/15/16 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
12 |
2 |
1 |
This is for the Journal of European Integration. Terrible experience. It took them around 12 months to get back with reviews, then 2 more months after the R&R. Editor decided to discontinue the review process after critical, but not disqualifying comments by referees on the revised version. Received only 1 review in the first place. Not very professional. |
2017 |
01/08/19 |
| Journal of European Pub Policy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desked within 24 hours. Didn't think it was the right fit but suggested two other outlets. |
2020 |
10/02/20 |
| Journal of Greek Political Thought |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Best feedback in comments I've ever received. Editor is professional and dedicated. I may never submit to another journal if I don't have to. |
2015 |
07/18/15 |
| Journal Of Human Rights |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Reasonable reviewer requests, but somewhat more challenging than I would have expected from a tertiary journal. The manuscript was much better as a result. |
2012 |
09/03/13 |
| Journal Of Human Rights |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
1.5 months to review. One reviewer had excellent comments. Very thoughtful and in-depth. Other review was okay. Overall worth submitting. |
2014 |
07/15/14 |
| Journal Of Human Rights |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rejected for formatting guidelines not specified on journal website |
2017 |
02/15/19 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Pending |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
27 days from submission to review. Not bad, but a bit slow. |
2017 |
10/13/17 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Pending |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
Seven months and still no first response. Unacceptable. |
2017 |
06/12/18 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Accepted |
5 |
5 |
3 |
Surprisingly helpful comments from all reviewers. A good experience. |
2014 |
04/15/16 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Accepted |
6 |
3 |
3 |
Good referee reports, some useful guidance from the editors, overall good experience. Slow though. |
2016 |
09/14/17 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Detailed, very helpful reviews. Recommended. |
2016 |
12/29/17 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Accepted |
5 |
6 |
2 |
A bit slow, but generally helpful comments. |
2015 |
06/21/16 |
| Journal Of International Relations And Development |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
63 days to a desk rejection. Unprofessional and unacceptable. |
2016 |
07/14/16 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
5 |
4 |
3 |
Terribly slow process, but excellent feedback from referees and editor. Manuscript greatly improved |
2017 |
05/31/18 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Great suggestions from reviewers. Significantly improved the manuscript. |
2015 |
07/30/16 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
3 |
6 |
4 |
Smooth process: the editor made it clear as to what to focus on in doing the RnR. |
2015 |
02/16/16 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
4 |
5 |
3 |
|
2011 |
03/14/13 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
2011 |
03/13/13 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
6 |
8 |
3 |
Terribly slow. Editorial manager/ assistant is impossibly torpid. 8 Weeks to process manuscript in between rounds of review. Editor fair but not at all concerned or aware of the unacceptable delays at her journal. |
2018 |
06/26/19 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
2015 |
06/14/16 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
One reviewer complained that our argument and the results our large N study didn't fit the single, unrelated case they studied. |
2015 |
12/30/15 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected on the basis of a review in which the reviewer stated they didn't want to see the piece published because they believed another scholar (ID'd by name) will be producing a better paper on the topic in the near future. Smacked of crony-ism and I did not receive useful suggestions for revision. |
2015 |
11/12/15 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers rejected, however received thorough comments plus useful suggestions from the editor. |
2016 |
04/13/17 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
4 |
Fair reviews, though a little slow |
2013 |
07/16/13 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Editor was thorough and fair. |
2012 |
06/21/13 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
management team unacceptably slow and incompetent |
2017 |
11/06/17 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
0 |
More than six months to hear back, only to get three one-paragraph reviews (two reject, one R&R). Unacceptably slow. |
2016 |
05/04/17 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
5 |
All reviewwers agred that my article didn't aim at saving the world |
2016 |
08/01/17 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
04/03/16 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Two positive reviews, one negative; editor still rejected. Process took way too long. |
2016 |
04/01/17 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
1 R&R, 1 rejection |
2017 |
08/21/18 |
| Journal Of Peace Research |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor politely indicates it would reach appropriate research communities with a journal in a different discipline |
2016 |
04/28/17 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Just less than two months turnaround; one reviewer's comments were helpful; the other's not so much |
2015 |
04/25/16 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 5 days with boilerplate rejection letter. |
2013 |
07/25/13 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
One referee in favor, the other recommended rejection. Overall: quick and fair |
2021 |
07/31/22 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Three weeks for a decision. Good detailed review. |
2018 |
08/26/18 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Good, quick, fair process. Reasonable reviews, though not super-helpful. (Basically: "Good paper, but not good enough." Which I more or less agree with.) |
2022 |
08/24/22 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject |
2020 |
03/09/20 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2021 |
04/03/21 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
1 |
Desk reject with one informal, internal review in 10 days. Fast and polite rejection email. |
2015 |
11/08/15 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject with no comments |
2022 |
07/12/22 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Relatively quick desk reject with boilerplate letter from editor. |
2019 |
08/11/19 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected in two days on grounds of insufficient originality. |
2018 |
08/26/18 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject after 1 day. |
2018 |
07/04/18 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Took 2 weeks |
2020 |
02/17/20 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject rate around 90% - at least quick and painless |
2020 |
05/25/20 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject after one week with no comments |
2022 |
04/06/22 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after 2 weeks with no comments |
2019 |
01/26/20 |
| Journal Of Political Philosophy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject |
2020 |
02/06/20 |
| Journal Of Political Science Education |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
2017 |
10/03/17 |
| Journal Of Political Science Education |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Overall, an excellent experience. The paper was sent out for review literally the same day that I submitted it, and the reviewers were very helpful. Two rounds of revisions, and then an accept. |
2017 |
10/03/17 |
| Journal Of Political Science Education |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Dear editor, can you not send quant pieces to qual scholars please? |
2017 |
11/06/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Slow, due to a backlog, at least in public law/theory. Editors are responsive to email. |
2016 |
03/20/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
2016 |
10/11/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
2015 |
06/24/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Very efficient, tough reviews |
2013 |
08/14/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
7 |
2 |
3 |
|
2014 |
01/25/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
2 |
Problematic communication with the journal in terms of timeliness, but fantastic experience with the field editor (theory); it was noticeable that there was a significant amount of time invested in reading the manuscript and thinking about how best to support its development and ultimately publication. |
2017 |
11/28/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
11 |
3 |
2 |
Slow process, but the outcome made it worthwhile. Reviewer comments were helpful and the editor was very good. Would recommend, but only if you can spare the time! |
2016 |
01/04/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
10 |
5 |
3 |
Referees were apparently difficult to find and slow to respond. The comments offered were thoughtful and useful. The editors were very reasonable and quick to respond to communication. |
2012 |
01/21/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
4 |
Amazingly fast, good direction on the behalf of the editor on how to respond to the reviews. Very positive experience under the new editorial team. |
2015 |
08/23/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Two reviews. First was three sentences. Second thought a few unpublished policy papers should have been cited (for a short article). Let's hope the new editors pick their reviewers better. |
2017 |
02/07/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
New editors are great. Submitted twice and both times received 2-3 good and thorough reviews in between 1-2 months. Neither was R&Red but that's bound to happen at a t3. |
2019 |
03/03/20 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Slow process. 3 R&R: 1 supportive, 1 mild, 1 skeptic, so rejection. Good comments. |
2016 |
12/08/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
10/30/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
13 |
N/A |
3 |
Horrible, the editor kept telling we were "close" to having the three reviews and more than a year has passed before having a response. Reviews were poorly written. Reviews are neither harsh nor constructive. One reviewer asks to address two points that were clearly addressed in the text... |
2015 |
07/19/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Very quick turn around, but it wasn't clear the both reviewers actually read the paper. One reviewer requested a table that already presented and discussed in the text. |
2013 |
10/11/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviewers made thoughtful, detailed comments and the editors offered suggestions to help place the paper elsewhere. All in all, very constructive feedback. |
2013 |
07/19/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
(cries on the keyboard) |
2016 |
06/23/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
referee rejected. one of the ref reports is extremely helpful. |
2019 |
12/22/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
2017 |
2016 |
07/10/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very thorough reviews but some comments were way off base or just plain incorrect. Lots of suggestions for improvement. |
2013 |
11/11/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
4 |
Took 6 weeks from submission to decision. Helpful reviews. [2017 submission] |
2016 |
08/21/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Pathetic comments. Just embarrassing. The reviewers clearly didn't read closely and were too lazy to think. Thanks for the waste of time. Never submitting here again. |
2013 |
07/24/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2019 |
05/13/20 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
A little slow. One reviewer gave a critical but fair and helpful review. The other didn't read the paper. |
2016 |
12/14/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
07/02/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
quick, professional, helpful |
2016 |
09/17/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
All reviewers recommended R&R, but editor rejected because reviews were not strong enough |
2014 |
06/10/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Speedy review. One helpful review and one short review. |
2014 |
08/28/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/12/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewer 2 was helpful and constructive overall. Reviewer 1 barely read the paper and provided negative but non-specific comments. Turnaround time was good. Also: All of this occurred in 2017, but that option isn't given. |
2016 |
05/15/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/18/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Pretty slow. Editor provided helpful feedback, but reviewers were lazy and one apparently couldn't interpret confidence intervals. Rough go. |
2015 |
02/16/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviewers suggested R&R. Editor rejected after not finding third reviewer. |
2017 |
08/21/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
one referee suggested R&R, second reject |
2013 |
02/06/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
3 |
Incredibly slow. Claimed that it took a long time to get a third reviewer. Reviews were positive, but not positive enough. |
2016 |
11/13/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
05/29/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
Three fairly constructive reviewer comments, although two of them didn't seem to read the ms that carefully. Found them helpful in reframing the paper. But it took too long for the first response. |
2017 |
01/04/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fast turnaround. Tough, but occasionally useful comments. |
2013 |
11/16/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
3 |
The reviews were pretty thoughtful, constructive, and positive (but recommended revisions), and so the editor rejected. |
2016 |
03/06/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
11/11/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Two weak reviews. One wanted cites to an irrelevant literature and other was one vague paragraph about how the theory wasn't big enough. Under previous team. |
2018 |
07/19/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
The comments of two reviewers were fair and will improve the paper. The other reviewer's comments less so. |
2019 |
05/14/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
3 |
Theory - awful experience. 9 months to recieve referee reports, which were poor. |
2016 |
03/22/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reports all explicitly said r&r, two of them very minor revisions. Editor decided reject with no explanation. At least it was quick (5-6 weeks). |
2019 |
07/10/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
sloooooow |
2016 |
04/28/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer had very helpful, constructive comments, pushing for submission to a subfield journal more suitable to the topic. The other appeared to not understand the puzzle or literature, and provided little in worthwhile feedback. |
2013 |
08/25/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful reviews. |
2014 |
11/24/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall fair reviews, some helpful comments. |
2014 |
09/23/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
08/04/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Tough but fair. Helpful comments from editor as well. |
2015 |
01/29/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/12/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
About six week for a reject. Ref reports were harsh, one very short, the other more extensive. Little constructive criticism |
2018 |
03/06/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
The article submitted was in political theory. One reviewer suggested an R&R, and the other suggested revisions without a clear indication to accept or reject the article. The editor did not feel that the reviews were strong enough to move forward with the article. |
2016 |
06/01/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
03/23/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two critical but fairly helpful reviews; one absurdly aggressive and unprofessional, clearly ideologically/politically motivated. Puts me off submitting there again. |
2014 |
04/23/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
06/09/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
08/05/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
one reviewer recommended R & R, another rejection |
2013 |
04/23/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
3 fairly neg. reviews, one quite constructive and long (though asking for too much to do in an article). Editor (AP Behavior) took time to make substantive comments where she prioritised among reviewer concerns. Helpful, if disappointing. |
2017 |
03/16/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
24 desk reject with helpful editor comments. |
2015 |
04/01/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Two weeks for desk reject. Editor said not general interest enough. |
2020 |
10/02/20 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rejected within 24 hours with no comments |
2016 |
11/23/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject, with comments on other journals to send to. |
2018 |
11/21/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted article in political theory and it took nearly 3 months for a desk reject. In the past response times were much quicker. It probably will be a while until I submit to JOP again. |
2017 |
01/03/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 3 days. Editor came up with a BS reason to do so in order to clear the deck for regime change, imo. Don't submit until new team is in place. |
2014 |
11/12/14 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
To narrow |
2016 |
05/04/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2018 |
03/12/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
No comment |
2016 |
01/23/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 38 minutes. |
2016 |
07/27/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Very fast response within a few days after submission. |
2016 |
01/21/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in less than a week. |
2012 |
03/14/13 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took more than two weeks to get a desk rejection. I'm not even sure what isn't desk rejected by JOP anymore. Seems the journal has really gone down hill recently. I won't be submitting again there any time soon. |
2019 |
03/26/19 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
6 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted in political theory. It took close to 6 months for a desk reject. |
2018 |
12/09/18 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected by a clearly overwhelmed subfield editor. The comments were thoughtful but suggestions included trying a completely unrelated journal. And I doubt the manuscript was read at all. |
2015 |
12/21/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject with thoughtful comments from subfield editor. |
2015 |
10/04/15 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1-week response; helpful comments from editor |
2016 |
01/19/16 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
2017. Not theoretically novel enough. Encouraged to submit as short article or to more specialized journal. |
2016 |
05/01/17 |
| Journal Of Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after one week |
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| Journal Of Strategic Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Two positive reviews, one with detailed comments and minor changes, the other with no info. Editors friendly. |
2014 |
01/13/15 |
| Journal Of Strategic Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
1 |
Rejected on the basis of one, fairly unhelpful, review. |
2014 |
09/20/14 |
| Journal Of Strategic Studies |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
reply within 12 hrs from submission - not a good fit, editor recommended alternative journals |
2013 |
04/30/13 |
| Journal Of Strategic Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
72 hour desk reject, citing that the article was "not appropriate." Given previous experience above, seems like they publish according to pedigree. |
2013 |
06/07/13 |
| Journal of the History of Ideas |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject without explanation, not even "ill fit." |
2014 |
08/07/14 |
| Journal of the History of Ideas |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Executive editors (4) read submissions before making a decision on whether to send it out for review. They say this process takes 1-2 months, but it took closer to 3. There was little explanation for the desk rejection. |
2018 |
07/03/18 |
| Journal of the History of Ideas |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rejection after 3 months with no feedback of any kind; |
2011 |
03/23/13 |
| Journal Of Theoretical Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2015 |
02/04/16 |
| Journal Of Theoretical Politics |
Accepted |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
First-round acceptance. |
2013 |
12/17/13 |
| Journal Of Theoretical Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were of mixed quality. The process was admirably quick. |
2013 |
02/04/14 |
| Journal Of Theoretical Politics |
Ref Reject |
18 |
N/A |
1 |
Took 18 months to reject based on a single reviewer |
2011 |
12/16/13 |
| Journal Of Theoretical Politics |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
3+ months to desk reject. |
2014 |
02/06/16 |
| Journal Of Women Politics & Policy |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
5 |
Although a rejection, very helpful and constructive critiques. I got the result after 45 days. Impressive considering that the manuscript was reviewed by 5 scholars |
2016 |
02/24/16 |
| Journal Of Women Politics & Policy |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2014 |
12/05/14 |
| Journal Of Women Politics & Policy |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Decision after exactly two months. Paper rejected, but we received three helpful reviews. A good experience after all. |
2016 |
10/28/16 |
| Journal Of Women Politics & Policy |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Editors said my paper on how women are discriminated against in primary elections was too narrow for this journal. Suggested I submit the paper to APSR instead since that is pretty much all they are publishing these days. |
2021 |
10/11/21 |
| Korea Observer |
Accepted |
36 |
9 |
5 |
I was even boning the editor and it took forever. |
2015 |
04/13/22 |
| Korea Observer |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
1 |
Very poor experience. Six months after initial submission, journal said it could not find a second reviewer and rejected manuscript with a single perfunctory review filled with vague generalizations. No constructive criticism. A frustrating experience. |
2018 |
02/16/19 |
| Latin American Politics And Society |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
One reviewer recommended acceptable straight off the bat with no substantive comments. Other reviewer recommended R&R with helpful suggestions. Revised paper was sent only to second reviewer, who recommended acceptance. Good experience. |
2020 |
07/20/20 |
| Latin American Politics And Society |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
2020 |
09/26/21 |
| Latin American Politics And Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
5 |
We waited for 4 months just to learn that the journal decided to send our paper to no less than 5 reviewers! 4 reviewers recommended R&R, the other did not clearly state a position. Editor decided to reject. |
2016 |
12/22/16 |
| Latin American Politics And Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
5 |
We waited for 4 months just to learn that the journal decided to send our paper to no less than 5 reviewers! 4 reviewers recommended R&R, the other did not clearly state a position. Editor decided to reject. |
2016 |
12/22/16 |
| Latin American Politics And Society |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 4 days. Good comments. |
2016 |
02/08/16 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Desk accepted because the editor is my advisor. |
2017 |
10/30/17 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
3 |
|
2012 |
05/10/13 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/19/13 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast response but mediocre reviews that faulted me for not doing things outside the purview of the paper (aka, write another paper). |
2014 |
11/12/14 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Pretty quick turnaround and definitely helpful feedback. One reviewer suggested R&R; two suggested reject. Was later accepted at another journal, thanks in part to feedback I received from this journal. |
2014 |
02/17/15 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
04/15/16 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
06/19/13 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
03/18/14 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
09/03/14 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
11 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
11/17/13 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
Four positive reviews, though rejected for fit. |
2014 |
07/16/14 |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject due to poor fit despite the fact that the study contributes to a number of studies previously published in LSQ. Editor's e-mail kind and encouraging. Took 3 weeks though! |
2017 |
10/30/17 |
| Local Government Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
2013 |
12/05/14 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Pending |
0 |
1 |
0 |
someone is posting fake reviews here to smear the editors’ reputations |
2020 |
02/07/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Pending |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Extremely professional and dedicated editorial team who always answer queries promptly. Received a revise and resubmit decision within only six weeks of submission. Given a very achievable 2 month deadline for R n R; currently awaiting final round of reviews. No matter how it turns out, I have been very impressed with the turnover speed and the availability of the editors. Would certainly recommend! |
2019 |
11/05/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Just one review and it was lukewarm, but editor let us move forward. Easiest path to a publication I’ve ever had! |
2019 |
02/02/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Accepted with trivial revisions. Easiest time I’ve ever had scoring a journal article. |
2019 |
01/29/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
helpful and fast. 2018 impact factor boosted from 1.136 to 1.73 |
2018 |
07/22/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Strangest thing. The editor told me if he could watch me take a poop, he would accept any article I submitted. And lo and behold, a few months after he watched me, I got in without any comment. Thanks, Matt! |
2020 |
07/03/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Very positive experience. Reviewer comments were detailed and required extensive revisions, but still doable. Editor was encouraging and provided extra time for R&R. Reviewer comments greatly improved the manuscript. Time between R&R submission and acceptance was lightening fast. Very pleased with overall experience. Will submit here again. |
2019 |
01/22/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
A rare desk accept from MP! I guess it made sense because I tossed the editor's salad at MESA |
2020 |
02/02/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Excellent experience. Quick turnaround and thorough reviews |
2019 |
10/30/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor messaged quickly after submission saying that all I needed to do was pee on him. We arranged a meeting at a truck station bathroom and that was that. He really seemed to enjoy it and I was glad to help. |
2020 |
09/05/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Good feedback; quick turnaround |
2015 |
07/23/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
0 |
Editor couldn’t find suitable reviewers but eventually gave up and accepted the article anyway. Somewhat odd result, but in the end a very easy publication for us, |
2019 |
02/07/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
We had an excellent experience with Mediterranean Politics. |
2019 |
12/24/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Had to deal with plainly wrong methodological gripe (even non-authors we showed the review to said it was bonkers), but once we satisfied reviewer with new incorrect analysis paper went in pretty easily. |
2019 |
01/23/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
This was extremely efficient and professional. Helpful reviews and editor guidance |
2019 |
12/29/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very positive experience. Reviewer comments were detailed and to-the-point, editor made it very clear what was needed for revision to be accepted. Will submit here again in the future. |
2019 |
11/23/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Excellent experience |
2019 |
01/25/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Accepted without revisions, and within weeks. |
2019 |
02/05/20 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Submitted to research notes category. Very fast turnaround. Referee comments were constructive, editor was active and involved throughout the process. Def will submit here again! |
2019 |
11/25/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Super fast and helpful comments. Would submit here again. |
2019 |
09/16/19 |
| Mediterranean Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject, in a week. The countries covered in the article does not fit directly with Mediterranean politics. Good recommendations by the editor. |
2020 |
02/03/20 |
| Millennium-Journal Of International Studies |
Pending |
6 |
6 |
0 |
New editors Kelly-Jo Bluen, Johanna Rodehau-Noack, and Emma Saint and ruining this journal! Rude and despite repeated promises to reply or give a decision, they did not. Seems like this is not their priority. Being feminists are not defences for being unprofessional girls. |
2019 |
07/01/19 |
| Millennium-Journal Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
14 |
10 |
4 |
Terrible experience. The review time was extremely long and it went to completely different reviewers in the second round. |
2014 |
08/27/15 |
| Millennium-Journal Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
9 |
6 |
5 |
Poor. Yearly editor turnover = no consistency in journal demands. Publication recommended by multiple reviewers (whom the journal failed to even annonymize in one case) but rejected based on single nonsensical review. Exceptionally long review process. |
2014 |
06/02/15 |
| Nations And Nationalism |
Accepted |
7 |
N/A |
5 |
Thorough reviews. Tough, but very helpful. |
2014 |
09/17/16 |
| Nations And Nationalism |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
5 |
Actually six reviews: 2 accept, 3 strong R&R, 1 reject. WTF? 5/6 is pretty good, and you're not the Goddamn APSR. |
2015 |
02/25/16 |
| Nations And Nationalism |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
04/13/16 |
| New Left Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
6 months without any sort of reply, intern who is in charge didn't answer emails. After I pull the manuscript, editor says they are just too busy. |
2015 |
05/15/16 |
| New Political Economy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent experience. Editors clearly read manuscript and offered additional thoughtful comments. |
2016 |
08/18/17 |
| New Political Economy |
Accepted |
1 |
3 |
2 |
Excellent experience. Responses were fast and the revewers' reports were very constructive and helpful. |
2018 |
09/20/19 |
| New Political Economy |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Swift, efficient process. Thorough reviewers. Would recommend. [NB 2017 submission, not 2016] |
2016 |
08/14/17 |
| New Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Four weeks for desk reject. |
2017 |
11/06/17 |
| New Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
yes, two months |
2014 |
10/21/14 |
| New Political Science |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Two rounds of R&R, but not back to reviewers. Very helpful editors. Paper is better for the further revisions they required. |
2014 |
01/11/16 |
| New Political Science |
Accepted |
0 |
N/A |
2 |
2-3 weeks to receive reviews. Exclnt comments. Made changes. Paper accepted - all w/in a month. |
2017 |
11/10/17 |
| New Political Science |
Accepted |
8 |
7 |
3 |
Very helpful comments from reviewers and editor. Paper is better for it. Very slow! |
2016 |
03/05/18 |
| New Political Science |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Good experience. Very efficient, constructive feedback from reviewers and editor. |
2012 |
05/29/13 |
| New Political Science |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Two rounds of R&R prior to acceptance. Very helpful editors and reviewers. |
2013 |
12/20/13 |
| Pacific Review |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
fast and efficient. |
2017 |
10/04/17 |
| Pacific Review |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Amazingly fast review process. The first round decision took only 1 month, and after r&r, the acceptance decision came within one week. One reviewer recommended publication and the other suggested major decision. Would definitely submit here again. |
2016 |
03/21/17 |
| Pacific Review |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
First response, which is minor rev, took 9 weeks. One reviewer make very insightful suggestions. overall smooth process, and a reliabale editorial team. |
2017 |
11/21/17 |
| Pacific Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Don't you love it when people who don't know basic stats comment on it? |
2016 |
03/31/17 |
| Parliamentary Affairs |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Not the fastest. But fair reviewer comments with clear instructions from the editor on what he wanted to see in revisions |
2021 |
08/16/21 |
| Parliamentary Affairs |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Amazing turnaround time. First reviews came back in two weeks. Acceptance came one week after submitting revisions |
2016 |
02/01/17 |
| Party Politics |
Pending |
9 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted in January 2015 and still waiting. One reviewer already submitted his report 6 months ago, the other one seems to be unresponsive to the editor since the first reminder (April 2015). |
2015 |
09/29/15 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Good experience. Two rounds, helpful reviews. |
2017 |
07/12/18 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
OK reviews, 2 year backlog so long time to print publication |
2013 |
10/19/15 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Good experience. |
2017 |
06/19/18 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
01/16/14 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Good experience. Very helpful editor. Two rounds of R&R prior to acceptance |
2017 |
02/28/18 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
2 |
First turnaround was quick. Editor suggested research note. No changes requested on second review. |
2015 |
10/28/15 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
2020 |
07/18/20 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 weeks from submission to RR decision. Two thorough and constructive reviews; my paper really improved. Comprehensive editors It was an overall good experience.. |
2015 |
07/01/16 |
| Party Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience and super fact. Very constructive reviews. |
2021 |
07/08/21 |
| Party Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
OK referee reports. Took approximately a month for the editor to find reviewers. |
2020 |
04/13/20 |
| Party Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
10 weeks to first decision. Reviewers provided constructive feedback and both seemed to suggest R&R. Editor decided to reject stating they only continue with manuscripts that receive strong recommendations from reviewers. |
2018 |
02/21/19 |
| Party Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Ref reject after two months. Reviews are tough but useful. |
2016 |
03/18/16 |
| Party Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
very constructive comments... |
2017 |
05/16/18 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in 3 days. Suggested other journals. |
2021 |
03/22/21 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 48h |
2018 |
08/17/18 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
48h desk reject, suggested area journal |
2016 |
03/04/16 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejection in 24 hours |
2018 |
07/06/18 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within 48h. Editor stated that they rarely publish single-country material nowadays. |
2018 |
08/16/18 |
| Party Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor desk reject, gave no reason other than fit overall not helpful. |
2015 |
10/05/15 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Critical and constructive reviews by people who actually read the paper! |
2018 |
06/25/18 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
03/16/13 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Accepted |
6 |
2 |
4 |
First set of reviews took an unusually long time to come in, but the reviews were fantastic and the editor was very clear about what he wanted changed. Very pleased with the process, even if it was a bit slow. |
2019 |
04/04/20 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
4 |
Great experience. Excellent but somewhat contradictory reviews, editor made very clear what he wanted done for acceptance. |
2014 |
09/20/14 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
Extremely helpful, very thorough reviews and clear expectations from the editor in the R&R. All round great experience. |
2019 |
06/28/20 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
5 |
Best reviews I've ever had and excellent editor comments. Improved the article immensely. |
2012 |
02/14/14 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
3 R&Rs, 1 reject |
2021 |
08/26/21 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
2 rejects - one outwardly hostile, 2 R&Rs |
2017 |
08/21/18 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
1 R&R and two rejections. Editor wrote short and polite letter concurring with the majority. Fast and professional. |
2014 |
04/20/15 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Long additional comments from editor that were somewhat apologetic. Strage ref comments; did not address empirical work at all, only frame of paper. Would not submit quant work there again; they don't really seem to understand it. |
2013 |
07/03/13 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
1 |
4 |
R&R after 1 accept, 1 reject, 1 minor revision, 1 major revision. After lengthy revisions, flipped apart from a cantankerous rejection. Editor rejected on that basis. Quick but frustrating. . |
2020 |
02/12/21 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Unhelpful reviews! |
2013 |
05/18/13 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
12/08/13 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Manuscript rejected after one review but overall positive suggestions from editor/reviewer. Took less than a 1 month. |
2015 |
10/05/15 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Received desk reject in less than two weeks. I was not necessarily expecting publication but I thought it was a good paper and a good fit with the journal so I was somewhat surprised. My impression from editor's comments was that he was looking for reasons to reject. At least the process was efficient. Ended up getting it reviewed and published at another journal. |
2011 |
05/29/13 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
05/04/16 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
I received a response back in about a week. Editor had read the paper and gave positive feedback on article, but recommended submitting it to a more specialized. Since the response was so quick, I was able to do that without wasting much time and the piece was published elsewhere. |
2014 |
10/21/15 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Relatively quick response, which was good, but the feedback was not the same caliber as what was common under the previous editor. |
2018 |
03/01/18 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
1 |
Desk reject within two weeks. Editor's comments and short comments from internal reviewer, both helpful. Best reject experience I've ever had. |
2014 |
09/30/14 |
| Perspectives On Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Here’s a tweet I recently sent: To: Daniel O'Neill Associate Editor Perspectives on Politics Yo Dan! I know u didn’t read my paper; just looked at References n thought u knew everything. U didn't fool me! |
2021 |
12/05/21 |
| PLOS One |
Pending |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Paper under review for 18 months, with six different editors. We finally withdrew after a request for a fifth round of revisions from the final editor. The journal has lost control of its editors and is not operatiing according to its own guidlines. The editors seem to be in open rebellion against the journal office. . |
2017 |
10/09/18 |
| Policy And Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
4 |
This is for Politics & Policy - journal name wrong in pull down menu. Excellent editor. Fast turn around. A+ would submit again. |
2014 |
10/19/14 |
| Policy Studies Journal |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Submitted in late July, R&R in late October - very helpful reviews and editorial guidance. Resubmitted in January and accepted in early March. Great experience |
2017 |
02/26/18 |
| Policy Studies Journal |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One RR, one reject. Editor rejected. All in all efficient process and useful reviews. |
2013 |
07/20/13 |
| Policy Studies Journal |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject from the editor; quick turnaround - got my reject in a matter of less than 3 weeks. |
2013 |
05/12/13 |
| Political Behavior |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
R&R after 2.5 months (old crew). Helpful and straightforward reviews. |
2014 |
01/02/15 |
| Political Behavior |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
3 |
Good reviews and straightforward RnR. It just took FOREVER. New ed. teaming though. |
2014 |
12/20/14 |
| Political Behavior |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience overall. Reasonable time to first decision, helpful comments, and really efficient processing after the accept. Would recommend! |
2017 |
03/31/18 |
| Political Behavior |
Accepted |
2 |
8 |
3 |
|
2011 |
03/29/13 |
| Political Behavior |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Editorial team was quick with clear communication. |
2016 |
10/10/16 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One report was detailed, helpful, positive. The other was more critical, but still made lots of helpful suggestions. |
2012 |
09/17/13 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
06/15/14 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reports. Two seemed favourable and suggested R&R. Third reviewer gave a scathing review which tanked the paper. |
2020 |
07/22/20 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
1 reject, 1 R&R, 1 accept = rejection |
2013 |
10/01/13 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2014 |
05/13/15 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
6 |
8 |
2 |
SLOW. |
2019 |
06/21/20 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2013 |
07/19/13 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Very quick response, was rejected because it was too narrow for the journal. Four sentence review. |
2013 |
04/07/15 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2019 |
05/10/19 |
| Political Behavior |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Positive and helpful ref. reports. Frustrating result, but overall, worth the submission and wait. |
2013 |
12/27/13 |
| Political Communication |
Pending |
8 |
N/A |
0 |
Slow |
2022 |
12/05/22 |
| Political Communication |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Fast turnaround times, very responsive, good reviewer comments. |
2014 |
01/16/15 |
| Political Communication |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
Smooth process with critical but constructive reviews. The editorial team was very responsive. |
2019 |
08/04/20 |
| Political Communication |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Three very constructive and thoughtful reviews that led to a much-improved paper that was accepted after 1 round of revisions. |
2018 |
01/22/19 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One helpful review, one review that misstated the main result of the paper and asked for more literature review |
2016 |
09/11/16 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
1 helpful review, 1 unhelpful review, 1 in the middle. |
2018 |
02/10/20 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One very positive review, one terrible review done by an absolute jerk who misunderstood what we were trying to do. Such is the draw sometimes. |
2014 |
01/20/15 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
0 |
Rejected after 8 months. 3 reviews suggested R&R with some helpful comments, and one rejected with less helpful comments. Some reviews were helpful though, the process was too slow. I wouldn't submit here again. |
2022 |
01/13/23 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2020 |
10/30/20 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
The reviewers were fairly positive but the editor felt the paper wasn't novel enough. |
2018 |
06/13/18 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
11/03/16 |
| Political Communication |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Three tough reviews that weren't that helpful. At least it was quick. |
2016 |
09/09/16 |
| Political Geography |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
2013 |
06/05/14 |
| Political Geography |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
incredibly good experience. professional, thorough and critical but entirely constructive reviewers, and timely process overall |
2021 |
11/05/21 |
| Political Geography |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Didn't contribute enough to geography. Comments were fair and fast. |
2019 |
04/17/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Two positive reviews - editor chose to give it back to us instead of waiting for third review. Editor comments were particularly helpful in the R & R process. |
2014 |
08/10/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
4 |
Long process where some reviewers dropped out and others were added, which made R&R process longer and more difficult to navigate than usual. |
2012 |
02/07/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
2016 |
04/21/17 |
| Political Psychology |
Accepted |
6 |
5 |
3 |
Not impressed with the time it took. Reviews were thorough, but does it really need to take that long? Others have confirmed similar wait times. |
2015 |
03/11/16 |
| Political Psychology |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Mainly helpful reviews |
2014 |
10/04/15 |
| Political Psychology |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
2 |
reasonable and appropriate requests. quickly accepted after revised. |
2018 |
05/29/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2020 |
09/13/20 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
2 reviewers, one accept one reject = reject without consulting a third reviewer |
2013 |
06/15/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
09/04/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Four months for two useless, single paragraph reviews. No comments from the editor. I'm not submitting or reviewing for this journal until they get new editors. |
2018 |
04/01/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Three negative but very constructive reviews. Pleasantly surprised by the level of feedback. |
2014 |
08/10/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnout with harsh but fair reviews |
2016 |
04/11/16 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2019 |
06/18/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
07/05/17 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround under the new team. Three constructive referee reports. |
2015 |
10/15/15 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
2 serious reviews (1 accept, 1 reject). Last one was terrible (reject). Outcome: reject. |
2018 |
09/12/18 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Okay reviews - some constructive comments; fair decision ed. decision considering reviews, though editor made no substantive comments. |
2017 |
03/16/18 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
2 |
Requested three review, but only had two. Helpful reviews |
2013 |
07/17/13 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
All three reviews mostly helpful. |
2013 |
01/10/14 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
5 |
3 |
Reviewers supported publication, editor demanded long list of revisions and finally denied publication based on a new review. Dreadfully slow and unresponsive process. Wouldn't submit there again under current regime. |
2016 |
02/02/17 |
| Political Psychology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reviewers very helpful & impressed at relatively quick turnaround. |
2021 |
05/04/21 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The editors had no clue about the pertinent literature. and |
2016 |
08/08/17 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2015 |
10/05/15 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
2 months for a desk reject |
2019 |
04/09/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Had to reformat paper to thier guidlines and then wait 3 months for a desk reject. |
2018 |
04/12/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The editors appear to be not well-acquainted with the pertinent literature and gave vague and rather arbitrary reasons for the rejection. Poor experience. |
2018 |
06/18/19 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
One recommended R/R, one Reject, 3rd reviewer kept delaying so editor rejected. 1 good set of comments, other looked like the comment section on a youtube video. Very unprofessional management. Time to first contact unacceptable. |
2015 |
11/30/15 |
| Political Psychology |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
It took them 1 month to check the ms. and then 1 month to desk reject it; horrible turnaround |
2018 |
09/14/18 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Pending |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Decent but not especially helpful reviews. Editor gave R&R. |
2014 |
07/16/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
2016 |
02/07/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Submitted in theory and had a very positive experience. Reviews were all helpful and subfield editor responsive. |
2020 |
03/22/21 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience. Fastest, most efficient review process I've ever had. |
2018 |
05/12/19 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
They took one week to accept after my R&R resubmission |
2012 |
03/20/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Great experience, helpful editors |
2017 |
11/17/19 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Helpful reviews, smooth process. |
2016 |
09/07/16 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
2014 |
10/04/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience. Relatively quick R&Rs, got constructive comments from reviewers and the whole process went rather smoothly |
2016 |
10/16/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One positive, one negative. Reviews were both professional. |
2012 |
08/15/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fair process. All three reviewers gave detailed comments, which rarely happens. |
2017 |
10/22/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two referees claimed I didn't do something I did. The other said that any paper using my method was an automatic reject in his/her book and also included some ad hominem attacks. I used to publish in PRQ with some frequency before the Oklahoma State team, and now I just get desk rejects and/or mean-spirited reviewers who accuse me of not doing things I specifically mention in the text. Sigh. |
2014 |
04/23/15 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/12/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2012 |
05/21/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/18/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
3 |
BEWA |
2016 |
03/30/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
04/29/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
2 R&R, 1 reject (really sloppy and non-sensical comments though). The editor went with the latter. Disappointed at the quality of reviews (even one review that recommended R&R wasn't that great) Would not submit here again. |
2020 |
09/16/20 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
05/05/16 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two reviewers were mildly positive, and only somewhat helpful. Third reviewer clearly stopped reading after page 5. |
2015 |
01/11/16 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
01/16/15 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One (very) positive, one negative. Editors rejected because the contribution wasn't strong enough. |
2014 |
12/02/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2011 |
03/12/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two reviewers recommended R&R, one rejected it. The last one and the editor had no idea what the paper is doing. |
2020 |
11/25/20 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two decent reviews, one review (#2) was absolutely horrible. Would complain to editors, but no use. Review is 115 words long, and actually says "it is impossible to evaluate the paper." Well, reviewers 1 and 3 disagree with that. Overall, good experience... pretty fast given the holidays. |
2018 |
01/22/19 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Generally unhelpful feedback. |
2016 |
05/18/16 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Two very positive and one extremely negative review resulted in rejection |
2011 |
07/19/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Nothing outstandingly bad/good with reviews, typical process, just took six months. |
2016 |
07/09/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
03/09/16 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
PRQ is a general-purpose journal so my manuscript is not a fit, says the editor. |
2016 |
03/18/17 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in less than a week |
2013 |
11/20/13 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Clear that the editors wanted to find an excuse to reject the manuscript early |
2014 |
05/19/15 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
V. quick desk reject w/ minimal explanation. Paper was then sent to another journal w/ higher impact factor and was accepted after minor revisions. |
2012 |
09/12/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Received desk reject four days after submission. Editor did not think paper would appeal to journal readership but offered useful feedback and suggested other journals that might be a better fit. |
2019 |
10/05/19 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected for narrowness in two days. |
2014 |
07/16/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 week |
2014 |
09/03/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Editors did not think topic was broad enough. Also, apparently did not understand research design. |
2014 |
09/11/14 |
| Political Research Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject for lack of importance |
2014 |
09/04/14 |
| Political Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Very good experience with two recent submissions. The editors carefully and critically review referee reports; they don’t appear to be looking for an excuse to reject every submission despite the very low acceptance rate. The formatting requirements are fairly unique—no substantive notes or appendices are permitted. Because of quick turnaround, will submit here again in the future. |
2020 |
02/20/21 |
| Political Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Very quick process. One reviewer obviously didn’t like the first version, but the editor issued an R&R. Nice to work with a journal where the editors are not looking for any excuse to kill a project. |
2020 |
06/08/20 |
| Political Science Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject because it's not POMO enough |
2014 |
09/30/14 |
| Political Science Research and Methods |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Replication took much longer than the actual review process |
2018 |
03/27/18 |
| Political Science Research and Methods |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent experience. |
2017 |
03/30/21 |
| Political Science Research and Methods |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
over three weeks to a "I like the paper but there is a minor weakness in it that could be easily corrected if I gave you the chance, but I won't." |
2021 |
03/26/21 |
| Political Science Research and Methods |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
When will EPSA change the editor?! |
2020 |
04/29/21 |
| Political Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Very professional experience, with some useful comments from the referees. |
2017 |
01/25/18 |
| Political Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
3 |
Good experience. Helpful reviews. |
2017 |
02/16/18 |
| Political Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Very smooth, competent reviews, good overall experience |
2012 |
05/16/13 |
| Political Studies |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Fast turnaround for both initial submission and R&R. Two helpful reviews which improved the paper. |
2021 |
10/22/21 |
| Political Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Good experience. The reviewers were quite positive and constructive. Submission was accepted after 1 round of R&R. Whole process was quite quick, professional and will submit at PS again. |
2014 |
12/28/17 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
01/08/16 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
fair reviews |
2014 |
11/10/14 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Efficient process, with constructive reviews. |
2018 |
07/25/18 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick review process, helpful comments |
2014 |
03/04/17 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Very fast response: slightly over two months and four reviews, two of them very detailed and substantive. Also a split decision: two advocating acceptance and two rejection. That led to rejection, of course, but at least useful and timely comments. |
2014 |
12/08/14 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
None of the reviews hated the paper, but none loved it either, so they could reasonably have generated a R&R, but maybe the journal is receiving more submissions these days and needs to get tougher. 2 of the 3 reviews were thoughtful and useful, the other 1 not so much. |
2016 |
10/06/16 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Very unpleasant experience. Poor reviewer feedback--and borderline rude comments from the editors. Why not just desk reject? I could have lived with that rather than losing so much time waiting only for useless comments. Will not submit there anytime soon again. |
2014 |
04/22/15 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One absolutely useless review that profoundly misunderstood the research question of the paper, the other fairly useless but seemingly an R&R. Understand why rejected based on the negativity of the first review, but editors really should have ignored that one given how completely off base it was |
2018 |
05/02/18 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
We had to wait six months to hear that the manuscript was rejected. Referee comments were fair and useful, but rather suggested R&R. Severe decision of the editors. |
2015 |
01/07/16 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2021 |
12/08/21 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Rejected. One reviewer provided careful detailed and useful comments, another small comments (but echoed a point of long review) and another an ok report. Good experience! |
2014 |
01/06/15 |
| Political Studies |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Super fast; all three reviews were helpful |
2013 |
06/24/13 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
04/25/16 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick and efficient desk reject (2 days) for being too narrow. |
2018 |
04/10/18 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 10 days, with a generic e-mail. |
2019 |
06/25/19 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after only one week. |
2014 |
07/10/15 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected with standard editorial comments |
2021 |
02/26/21 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject in political theory without any comments |
2020 |
09/09/20 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Immediate desk reject with no comments |
2019 |
01/30/20 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took three weeks to desk reject |
2014 |
06/17/15 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
desk reject after 8 days with a standard e-mail |
2018 |
09/23/18 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected with standard editorial comments |
2020 |
03/09/20 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Two months for a desk reject: we like the paper, but no fit. Seems a little long. No comments whatsoever |
2013 |
04/04/13 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject |
2020 |
02/19/20 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
One month to desk rejected. Backlog due to novel corona. |
2020 |
05/06/20 |
| Political Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject with form letter. |
2019 |
02/22/19 |
| Political Studies Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Still pending decision. What a waste of time! I can send it to other journals if they decide mine to be desk-rejected. |
2021 |
09/05/21 |
| Political Studies Review |
Pending |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reasonably quick R&R with interesting reviews, |
2016 |
01/26/17 |
| Political Studies Review |
Accepted |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
07/30/14 |
| Political Theory |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Clear, helpful reviews; great experience. |
2015 |
04/27/16 |
| Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One suggesting revision, and other rejection. Tough but high quality reviews. |
2020 |
01/11/22 |
| Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
6 |
2 |
2 |
One of the reviewers kept on insisting that I should engage with some obscure dialogues |
2018 |
07/05/19 |
| Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
New editorial team (Univ. Virginia). Generally good (occasionally biased) reviewer comments. |
2016 |
12/28/16 |
| Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
1 |
|
2013 |
10/16/15 |
| Political Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewer called the paper well written, publishable, and even agreed with every argument in it, but urged rejection because paper was "too historical" for Political Theory. If you do Cambridge School work, I would recommend submitting to a different journal. |
2018 |
04/08/18 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Less than a week. Quick and (relatively) painless death. |
2021 |
11/18/21 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Took 3 weeks (backlog), fair comments by EIC |
2020 |
03/26/20 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after a month |
2020 |
01/02/21 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
2 weeks for desk reject for being historical and not contemporary enough |
2020 |
03/08/20 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rejection after 3 mos. w/2 sets of internal reviews; old PT regime, obviously |
2011 |
03/16/13 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after 2 weeks with fair comments |
2020 |
03/09/20 |
| Political Theory |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Took six weeks to desk reject without comments. One would expect that the turn around time would be lesser now that the journal has 3 editors. It increased threefold and without any feedback whatsoever. Disappointing |
2021 |
02/22/21 |
| Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Efficient review |
2013 |
01/18/14 |
| Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
2014 |
12/05/14 |
| Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Tough but helpful reviews |
2013 |
08/29/13 |
| Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
06/19/13 |
| Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after two weeks. Article too case-specific for a generalist journal. Fair enough. |
2016 |
09/02/16 |
| Politics & Gender |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
The editor was great, and the review process was efficient and helpful. |
2012 |
03/27/13 |
| Politics & Gender |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
The old editor was a little less responsive. Review quality was great. Good experience. |
2018 |
07/17/19 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two reviewers were very positive and suggested, in their own words, "very minor revisions" (e.g. shortening the title, etc.). One reviewer was angry and suggested reject, probably for not citing. The editor took sides of the angry reviewer. |
2019 |
10/30/19 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
The three reviewers made very detailed critics on the paper and provide helpful suggestions on how to further revise the paper. |
2021 |
10/10/21 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
1 |
We had to wait six months to receive only one (rather poor) review. |
2016 |
08/09/16 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
Not a great experience. |
2015 |
11/12/15 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
4 |
I have had multiple manuscripts accepted and rejected here under the last three editorial teams. PAG is open to different methodological approaches and a wide range of topics—everything I have submitted has gone out to reviewers. As far as I can tell, three reviewers must recommend publication. This can lead to a long, multiple-round R&R process, where revisions feel like Groundhog Day because new reviewers are being added at each stage of review. |
2020 |
02/20/21 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
8 |
4 |
5 |
Submitted first round, got it sent out for review. Major revisions suggested after 8 months. Resubmitted with all but one of the recommended changes made. Told that if last change wasn't made, then rejection. Then made the last change. Sent out for review, and another 5 months of waiting. Same reviewer now suggests complete overhaul of project, with different research question. Invited to write new project. Said no. |
2013 |
11/11/14 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
1 |
Editor was apologetic, indicated issues finding reviewers and that multiple reviewers committed to reviewing MS only to back out later. Good feedback from the one reviewer I had and invitation to submit to the journal again in the future. |
2012 |
03/27/13 |
| Politics & Gender |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
0 |
Reject through system email, no ground given, not even a single review sent with the email on online to be found! editor does not respond to emails (several sent). |
2016 |
11/20/16 |
| Politics & Gender |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
quick desk reject with personalized response with suggestions for future submission. Seems to suggest a narrow conception of gender and politics in response. . |
2020 |
08/25/20 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
1 |
|
2013 |
03/20/13 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Submitted just before their board deadline, quick turn around. Received full board review after 3 board members evaluated the article and agreed it was worthwhile discussing as a board (this is their process, which is also not blind, they know who you are). The full board comments received in reply did contain a few constructive suggestions, but also included (a) unprofessional and emotionally charged statements, to my surprise; (b) technical methodological comments which were either incorrect or showed the commenters had not actually read the full paper. I agree with other assessments here that this board is arbitrary and appears to be having its own conversation. This was my second time submitting to this journal, the prior different article had been handled a bit strangely, and I ultimately published that one in a higher impact factor journal. I will not be submitting here again. I am a tenure track R1 prof. |
2018 |
02/27/19 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
1 |
Editorial board reject (they don't do referees) in six weeks. Thorough comments. |
2016 |
04/01/16 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
The editorial board gave very few very short reasons for their decision... and the reasons they gave would not past muster with most journal editors. It appears that most of the quality this journal ends up with is a result of personal networks or luck, not a result of the editorial board's good judgment. In future, I will avoid this journal. |
2014 |
11/01/14 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Great and encouraging comments from the Editorial Board. Plan to resubmit! |
2016 |
02/09/16 |
| Politics & Society |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
0 |
Good reviews |
2016 |
08/14/17 |
| Politics & Society |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submittted just before their boar meeting, so quick, short reply that it was too narrow |
2015 |
05/04/17 |
| Politics & Society |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Bizarre experience. Editors did not think paper was good enough to be sent for review, asked for certain changes. After making those changes and resubmitting, I did not hear for four months. I then contacted them and was told the paper had been desk rejected three and a half months prior, but no one told me. |
2014 |
05/20/15 |
| Politics & Society |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Took 4 months for a desk reject. WTF? |
2013 |
08/01/14 |
| Politics & Society |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
fast (40 days), and professional, short but helpful editorial board review/comments |
2013 |
12/08/13 |
| Politics and Religion |
Accepted |
4 |
5 |
2 |
Bit slow, but overall positive experience. Editors very clear and helpful on what was needed to turn the R/R into acceptance. One reviewer's comments helpful, other not so much. |
2015 |
01/20/16 |
| Politics and Religion |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
2 |
Great experience. Timely reviews with thoughtful comment. |
2012 |
01/14/14 |
| Politics and Religion |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
2015 |
01/04/16 |
| Politics and Religion |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
0 |
Editor was great to work with and very helpful in giving guidance for revisions. Journal also was very responsive in processing paperwork after the article was accepted. Unbelievably short time ( |
2014 |
08/12/15 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
R&R'ed with a good mix of reviewers. |
2013 |
12/10/13 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Positive experience with the journal. The first round of comments were helpful, and the R&R was accepted without a request for further changes. |
2014 |
10/21/15 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
4 |
First decision in 6 weeks. Second in 4. Received 4 helpful reports alongside comments from the editor on expectations regarding changes that were required. |
2020 |
10/07/20 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
MS had two rounds of R&R, with new reviewer added after first R&R. Accepted outright after second round. |
2013 |
05/14/14 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Very smooth process. The R&R was accepted with no further changes. |
2014 |
08/13/14 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
2 |
Two rounds of R & Rs, took a long time (4 months) to accept after second round |
2013 |
05/19/14 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Ref Reject |
3 |
3 |
5 |
Revise and resubmit after nearly 3 months with reasonably helpful comments, got rejected after re-submission as it did not fit their political science audience (theory paper) |
2018 |
08/14/18 |
| Politics Groups and Identities |
Ref Reject |
3 |
3 |
5 |
Revise and resubmit after nearly 3 months with reasonably helpful comments, got rejected after re-submission as it did not fit their political science audience (theory paper) |
2018 |
08/14/18 |
| Politische Vierteljahresschrift |
Ref Reject |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Rather cumbersome process with all contact via e-mail. Reviews were largely correct, and we especially met the most fundamental comments. Paper was nevertheless rejected after an 8-month process. |
2015 |
04/12/16 |
| Polity |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Very good experience. One reviewer very positive, rec. acceptance; another reviewer rec. r&r; third said reject b/c piece was qualitative. Editor was very helpful, and reviewers - even one who suggested rejection - provided constructive criticism. |
2015 |
02/24/16 |
| Polity |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
4 |
(Actually six weeks before they got back to me after I resubmitted). |
2015 |
03/02/16 |
| Polity |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Very helpful comments from the editor and reviewer |
2011 |
10/01/13 |
| Polity |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Two strong R&Rs, one weak R&R, all with valuable feedback that improved the paper. Editor made clear what his priorities were with respect to revisions. Great experience. |
2014 |
04/21/15 |
| Polity |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
no electronic submission. |
2014 |
11/10/14 |
| Polity |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Split reviews |
2011 |
05/29/13 |
| Polity |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Constructive reviews, good communication. Would submit again. |
2020 |
11/15/20 |
| Polity |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
07/19/17 |
| Polity |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
06/10/14 |
| Polity |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Too specific, made helpful suggestions and offered to consider it again. |
2019 |
04/01/19 |
| Polity |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected as too specific of a topic. |
2012 |
03/29/13 |
| Post-Soviet Affairs |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
1 |
Great process. |
2020 |
05/06/21 |
| Post-Soviet Affairs |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Case study about one country was rejected as too narrow in focus. I may agree, but many articles in that journal are similarly narrow. |
2016 |
08/10/17 |
| Post-Soviet Affairs |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor stated paper would not 'interest area studies specialists.' |
2013 |
12/24/13 |
| Post-Soviet Affairs |
Desk Reject |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
very strange. no other comment. |
2015 |
06/19/17 |
| Post-Soviet Affairs |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Not sure what TF wants |
2016 |
08/14/17 |
| Problems Of Post-Communism |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Great process. Recommend |
2018 |
01/18/20 |
| Ps-Political Science & Politics |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
submitted in May and followed up with a correspondence in September with no response or acknowledgement of email. |
2013 |
10/11/13 |
| Ps-Political Science & Politics |
Accepted |
8 |
N/A |
1 |
Eight months to review despite several e-mail inquiries. Apparently it took 2 months even to send it out for review. Editor contact after submission was much better than during review process. |
2012 |
09/21/13 |
| Ps-Political Science & Politics |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
0 |
Only one review after 8 months. The reviewer didn't even read the paper. |
2012 |
03/25/13 |
| Public Choice |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Terrible. Both reviewers were very positive and suggested R&R, associate editor rejected "based on his own reading of the manuscript". |
2017 |
02/28/18 |
| Public Choice |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
1 |
The process was pretty fast, but I was bummed that the manuscript was only handed out to one external referee. The comments were useful though, would submitt again. |
2020 |
01/12/21 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Good experience |
2020 |
09/23/20 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Two helpful reviews, one that didn't fully understand the project or the analysis and recommended rejection. Still, the editor sided with the other two reviews, extended an R&R, and ultimately accepted. Overall, efficient process and positive experience. |
2015 |
09/10/15 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Very polite and constructive reports. All three referees liked the paper but thought it would be to specific for POQ. Very good experience. |
2014 |
04/15/15 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One helpful review, one less so. Both suggested a reject based on perceived importance. Overall, seemed like a fair experience. |
2019 |
11/14/19 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very helpful reviews. |
2016 |
07/30/17 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two of three referee reports were really helpful. Very honest, critical reviews. |
2013 |
12/27/13 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
One moderately helpful review, one unhelpful but encouraging review, and one reviewer that was spiteful, mean, and clearly did not read the piece carefully. Mixed feelings about this experience. |
2016 |
05/08/16 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Useful Comments |
2014 |
11/24/14 |
| Public Opinion Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
1 |
0 |
they said it was not a good match and told me to submit to a socialogy journal |
2016 |
05/25/17 |
| Publius-The Journal Of Federalism |
Accepted |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Little more than 2 months both rounds. |
2011 |
03/17/13 |
| Publius-The Journal Of Federalism |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected in less than a week with efficient and helpful comments. |
2015 |
12/21/15 |
| Quarterly Journal Of Political Science |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Terrible experience with QJPS. Only got a reply after writing editorial assistant for an update. A couple hours later got a rejection from the editors, together with 2 positive reviews. The editors oddly cherry-picked reviewer comments, taking them out of context, and had only bothered to reply after I pushed for the update.. Had they been against the paper, they could have desk-rejected the paper, saving me months. Have had many rejections but none as useless or weird as this. Would avoid unless you know the editors / are a well-established scholar. |
2018 |
06/05/19 |
| Quarterly Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast, DR after ~one week. Scope was too narrow, editors gave helpful suggestions as to alternative journals. |
2016 |
11/15/16 |
| Quarterly Journal Of Political Science |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rejection from co-editors |
2019 |
11/05/19 |
| Research and Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
High quality comments and very quick turnaround (3 months from submission to publication with 1 R&R round). |
2018 |
10/10/18 |
| Research and Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Positive experience. Very helpful reviews from 2 reviewers and Associate Editor. Accepted less than a week after making revisions. |
2020 |
02/23/21 |
| Research and Politics |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Two ref reports + anonymous comments from an associate editor. Extremely fast and competence reviews with a vert fast r&r turnaround. Editors are excellent. |
2019 |
05/20/19 |
| Research and Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Reasonably quick; reviews largely positive. Editor didn't seem to like the paper, though. |
2018 |
11/21/18 |
| Research and Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
R&P still upholds its core mission of quick response. Very quick response without specific comments pointing out "not attractive to general audience". Suggested for a more specialized journal. |
2021 |
08/16/21 |
| Research and Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor rejected within a week. Recommended sending to me specialized subfield journal |
2020 |
05/10/20 |
| Review Of International Organizations |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Tough but helpful reviews and great additional comments from the editor. Good experience. |
2020 |
10/04/20 |
| Review Of International Organizations |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2018 |
10/02/18 |
| Review Of International Organizations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Year Submitted to Journal: 2015 |
2014 |
05/24/15 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Great experience: Reviews were constructive and their comments made the manuscript better, editor gave helpful guidance, and the review process was fast. Recommend. |
2018 |
06/27/19 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Fairly quick. Genuinely helpful feedback from reviewers and editors. |
2019 |
01/14/20 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Snarky, but helpful reviews. A bit slow. |
2017 |
10/04/17 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
06/14/17 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Thoughtful comments from the editors in addition to two thorough reviews. |
2016 |
11/24/16 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Thoughtful reviews, process not too slow. Overall, good experience despite the rejection. |
2019 |
10/31/19 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Good experience. Two constructive reviews that will help me revise the article and submit elsewhere. |
2017 |
04/12/18 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Article didn't fit with Aims & Scope. Was a lit review - they have published those in the past but not frequently. |
2020 |
12/21/20 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
5 weeks for desk reject. No explanation. |
2019 |
10/19/19 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
No explanation. Thought it was good fit. |
2020 |
09/26/21 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
1 month to no explanation desk reject. Seems like new editorial team is doing a bang-up job. |
2019 |
12/03/19 |
| Review Of International Political Economy |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject within a day or two. No explanation, but in retrospect the manuscript was a poor fit. |
2017 |
07/09/18 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
2014 |
08/30/15 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
I received several clear and high quality reviews. R&R process went smoothly. |
2016 |
03/02/18 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Accepted |
0 |
N/A |
3 |
Two months to r&r. Two months to conditional acceptance. Less than 24 hours to acceptance. Three and a half months to online publication. Thumbs up to the LSE editorial team as well as the author he-he. |
2014 |
02/06/15 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2009 |
06/07/13 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
long review. template rejection :( |
2017 |
06/21/18 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Quick and professional process, comments from 1 reviewer only. Helpful for further revisions. |
2017 |
10/24/17 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Ref Reject |
5 |
6 |
3 |
bad experience - 6 months to respond to an R&R, only to reject based on one review. overall a huge waste of time |
2015 |
07/29/16 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected without any explanation in 3 weeks. Slow and unprofessional. |
2016 |
12/22/16 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick decision and reasonable desk rejection. |
2016 |
07/09/17 |
| Review Of International Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Weird experience. Told to reformat paper to adhere to journal style for it to get sent for review. Then gets desk rejected after a month. |
2014 |
09/20/14 |
| Review of Politics |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Very fast and efficient. Two demanding rounds of revisions. |
2019 |
02/29/20 |
| Review of Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
excellent feedback from internal and external reviewers; editor provided clear direction regarding revisions |
2013 |
01/24/14 |
| Review of Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reviewers in a one month turnaround. Much like the last time I submitted there, the tone of some of the reviews was bordering on unprofessional, and at least one was a Straussian crank. |
2020 |
01/19/21 |
| Review of Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2014 |
09/06/14 |
| Review of Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
5 |
The journal was quick in responding, which I appreciated. 2 reviews were favorable, 3 were not. If requested, an R&R would have been tough with 5 reviewers to respond to. |
2014 |
10/07/15 |
| Review of Politics |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Journal has an odd method of doing internal review (2) before sending out for review. The article was desk rejected, but received constructive criticism. |
2013 |
05/30/13 |
| Revista De Ciencia Politica |
Accepted |
10 |
2 |
2 |
Constructive criticism from the referees, but the editorial board took too much time in processing the first manuscript. The final version was published a year after the acceptance. |
2013 |
02/25/16 |
| Revista De Ciencia Politica |
Ref Reject |
3 |
2 |
2 |
The process was odd. The editor sent me two very well-founded reviews that helped me improve the paper. However, when I re-submitted the suggested changes, there was an editor change, and the new one decided to send the manuscript to other reviewers. The evaluations were unpleasant and unconstructive, and it seemed that the second reviewers were not experts on the subject. |
2019 |
03/29/20 |
| Security Dialogue |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Overall fast and fair. They ended up adding a new reviewer in the second round, which initially pissed me off, but later I realized that the reviewer's comments improved the paper. |
2018 |
04/20/19 |
| Security Dialogue |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
We got a rather vague "no" from editors. "Interesting" but not critical enough. What do I know. |
2020 |
09/29/20 |
| Security Dialogue |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Good comments and the editorial team made an effort to read and discuss the merits of the paper. However, the decision to do a 'editorial rejection' took a little too long - 1 month. |
2017 |
10/11/17 |
| Security Studies |
Accepted |
7 |
3 |
2 |
Fair, if slightly slow, process. Good communication explaining delays. Reviews improved the paper. Overall solid experience. |
2017 |
08/27/18 |
| Security Studies |
Accepted |
8 |
1 |
2 |
One reviewer very positive offered only minor suggestions. The other reviewer was positive and gave plenty of useful suggestions. Editors were very flexible and willing to help |
2013 |
05/11/14 |
| Security Studies |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Fair and detailed reviews, but a bit slow process. But the paper came out much better at the end. Good experience overall. |
2018 |
06/09/19 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
Shockingly long wait time and utterly useless reviews. The editor's note was very nice and lengthier than either review. Would never submit to them again. |
2013 |
09/03/13 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Very thorough referee reports, good basis for reworking |
2013 |
06/25/13 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
7 |
2 |
Horrible experience. 2 reviewers ACCEPTED the article with revisions, asked for very few revisions and praised the manuscript. Did the revisions, sent it back, only to have them forget that they had already reviewed the article before and reject it. |
2015 |
03/31/17 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer did not read the paper and wrote a review of a few sentences. The other review was good and fair. |
2013 |
04/28/14 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer recommended R&R, another it was hard to tell what he/she wanted. Ed. rejected. Six months is a long time just to get that result. |
2014 |
05/15/15 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
2 |
Obnoxious reviewers who clearly did not read the paper closely. Guess 9 months was not enough time. |
2011 |
06/07/13 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
6 |
2 |
waited 6 months for 2nd round, got new set of comments from 1, vague rejection of revisions from other |
2018 |
02/15/19 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer recommended R/R. The other had an axe to grind, and gave very little useful feedback. Submitted 2015. |
2014 |
07/16/15 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Two reviews, one very helpful, the other not so much. |
2013 |
04/30/14 |
| Security Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
R1 recommended accept with minor revisions, R2 reject. Both gave good feedback but R2 was a bit of a jerk. 2017. |
2016 |
07/28/17 |
| Security Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
3 days before desk rejection. Thoughtful comments from the editor. |
2016 |
05/09/16 |
| Security Studies |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast "no" because not interested in topic. |
2013 |
03/16/14 |
| Social Science Journal |
Accepted |
5 |
5 |
2 |
Good experience. Timely and helpful reviews, good editor comments. |
2012 |
09/20/14 |
| Social Science Journal |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Quick response. Comments are helpful. |
2018 |
08/28/18 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Have been waiting 13 months and have not had one correspondence with the journal since submitting. |
2014 |
04/07/15 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Coming up on my one year anniversary of when I submitted to this journal. One of the editors was responsive in the beginning. 1.5 months ago the editor told me he had the reviews in and I should hear a verdict within a week. Still waiting. I won't submit to this journal again until its under new leadership. This process has been ridiculous and they have no respect for the people who submit. |
2018 |
12/23/18 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted 8 months ago and I am still waiting for a staff member to " submission is appropriate for this journal." |
2016 |
10/18/16 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
Terrible experience. Editor was completely unresponsive. Could not even get confirmation that reviewers had been selected. Withdrew after 11 months and sent somewhere else. |
2012 |
09/08/14 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted 8 months ago and I am still waiting for a staff member to " submission is appropriate for this journal." |
2016 |
10/18/16 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
10 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted there last year. Thinking of sending the manuscript a birthday card in a few months to see if the editors have moved on it. |
2013 |
09/10/14 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Recently resubmitted in R&R; editorial team was quite fast to respond. Just a tad bit slow sending out revisions (~2-3 weeks), but waiting to see what happens. |
2019 |
10/24/19 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Haven't acknowledged they have my manuscript, don't respond to emails... |
2014 |
01/29/15 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
This went faster that I expected. Yes, there is a lack of communication between author and editor, but everything else went smoothly. |
2015 |
09/29/15 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Very constructive and positive reviews. |
2013 |
12/02/14 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
Terrible terrible experience. Very slow review process and the worst of it - no referee reports! The editor is unresponsive it's like a joke. |
2016 |
08/16/16 |
| State Politics & Policy Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Well managed. |
2014 |
02/07/15 |
| State Politics & Policy Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
2012 |
06/28/13 |
| State Politics & Policy Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
2 refs suggested R&R; third ref ripped paper--rejected. Comments generally helpful and on target. |
2013 |
04/28/14 |
| State Politics & Policy Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
06/21/13 |
| State Politics & Policy Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround and helpful reviews. Overall good experience and helped me turn it into a better manuscript. |
2017 |
01/09/18 |
| Studies In American Political Development |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Received two reviews, one suggested accept and the other reject. Helpful reviews, but a bit slow. |
2015 |
08/09/16 |
| Studies In American Political Development |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Long desk reject, but editor gave wonderful comments for improvement gleaned from editorial committee meeting. A really first rate journal. |
2013 |
06/20/13 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
06/11/13 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Quick response. Suggestions are very detailed and helpful. Took roughly 3 months for first decision, 2 for second, and 1 for third. |
2019 |
05/18/20 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Accepted |
11 |
4 |
2 |
Editor irresponsible, delays without apology, and makes condescending comments; first review took 11 months; only bright side is they finally accepted |
2014 |
04/03/16 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Accepted |
13 |
3 |
2 |
Very long time until getting the first response. Useful and fair comments. |
2013 |
06/08/15 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Ref Reject |
10 |
4 |
2 |
|
2012 |
04/15/13 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
Slow. Reviews were fine, but not worth waiting 8 months for. |
2022 |
08/15/22 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were positive but mixed. When I emailed to check on progress after 6 months, it took four emails to get a response. |
2017 |
11/13/17 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Helpful comments from editor |
2013 |
11/11/14 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 3 months. |
2014 |
08/22/14 |
| Studies In Comparative International Development |
Desk Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor irresponsible. Desk Reject after 4 months, without a clear motivation. Bad journal. They only publish article of their internal community. |
2018 |
07/28/18 |
| Swiss Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Very quick revisions, one month only. However, comments were not very useful even if very critical. I guess they were not expert in the field. |
2017 |
10/11/17 |
| Swiss Political Science Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
5 months from the submission to receive the final response. In the between 3 weeks with the "Pending Decision" status. Negative reports, not constructive comments at all. |
2018 |
10/10/18 |
| Swiss Political Science Review |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 3 |
2013 |
06/08/13 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
2012 |
08/09/13 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Very quick. Receptive editor. |
2013 |
01/11/14 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Professional. Constructive and fair reviews. Editor was helpful. Excellent experience. |
2015 |
04/23/19 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Positive experience; two out of three reviewers were constructive; third reviewer had reservations “I would write it differently”; editor was very professional. |
2015 |
06/18/16 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Two solid reviews, one read it more carefully than the other; editors pushed it through for a quick process. Will definitely submit again. |
2015 |
09/25/16 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Detailed comments after 2 months, addressed comments completely and paper was accepted in one week. Great experience, would submit here again. |
2019 |
02/17/20 |
| Terrorism And Political Violence |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
0 |
Horrible experience. We submitted thinking it'd be a fast response.8+ months still awaiting reviewer selection.After two emails and a call to the editor (no response either way), article finally showed as under review. 2 months later, rejection, no reviews. I guess it's a desk reject then due to failure to find reviewers perhaps. Such a disgrace. |
2012 |
05/28/13 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
fast and quite helpful reviews! |
2014 |
11/04/15 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
2015 |
04/12/17 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Fast process, good reviews, very helpful editors and communications. |
2016 |
06/30/17 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
Took them a while to assign referees but then constructive reviews within a month, accepted within another month. |
2015 |
02/11/16 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Answer was given in a week. Reason was not explained. |
2016 |
02/18/17 |
| Third World Quarterly |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk reject with vague reasons. |
2022 |
11/23/22 |
| Urban Affairs Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
4 |
I had to wait a while to get their response. Basically all reviewers concurred on rejection. However all four reports were competent and very helpful. They all read the MS quite thoroughly. Cannot complain at all. Would definitely submit there again with a stronger MS. |
2013 |
01/06/14 |
| West European Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
2017 |
11/23/17 |
| West European Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Good experience. Took a while to get first decision. Two reviewer reports with substantive comments and detailed suggestions for improvement. Only one week between resubmission of R&R and final acceptance! |
2019 |
07/05/19 |
| West European Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
(year is 2017) |
2016 |
06/09/17 |
| West European Politics |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Process took 9 months in total, but when the reviews did arrive they were helpful and fair. |
2017 |
12/14/18 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Pretty fast process. Although the reviewers seemed to suggest minor and major revisions, the journal seems to accept only papers that are strongly supported by reviewers. |
2018 |
01/15/19 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One positive and helpful review. One negative. 9 weeks to decision |
2020 |
06/15/20 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Quick process. The reviewers opted for major revision, but the Editor went for rejection. However, he was very kind and reviewers gave me very useful comments to improve the manuscript further! |
2017 |
12/12/17 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Took more than four weeks to pass the desk before going to reviewers. Very slow editorial decision-making and not very good at email communication. When review's finally came in, both provided good and fair comments. Paper ultimately accepted at Party Politics. |
2018 |
05/14/19 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Fast process overall. Two reviews, one fairly negative, the other with workable criticisms. In the end, the editors had no choice but to reject. Good points for reviewing the manuscript. |
2019 |
10/19/19 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
1 |
8 |
2 |
After 8 months, I received 2 quite positive reviews which suggested R&R. Nevertheless, editor rejected it. |
2016 |
06/15/17 |
| West European Politics |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
03/09/16 |
| West European Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
5 workdays for a desk reject |
2020 |
10/16/20 |
| World Development |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Good experience. Some difficulties with one of the reviewers, but overall the reviewers were both helpful and the editor was supportive throughout. Also very quick from acceptance to online first. |
2017 |
06/08/18 |
| World Development |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
good reviews, very quick process |
2014 |
10/06/14 |
| World Development |
Accepted |
7 |
4 |
4 |
|
2010 |
07/18/13 |
| World Development |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
The referees did not appear to have sympathy for discourse analysis, and rejected the paper mostly on the basis of that - questioning the results from the study. The journal publishes a disproportionate number of economic and quantitative papers. Editors could do a better job in matching manuscripts with appropriate reviewers - with similar epistemologies |
2017 |
06/17/20 |
| World Development |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
Comments helpful, but process slow |
2013 |
08/04/15 |
| World Development |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
submitted in 2017. The reviewers stated they supported RnR but the tone of support was lukewarm at best. |
2016 |
07/27/17 |
| World Development |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast desk reject |
2014 |
12/02/14 |
| World Development |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in 1 week. |
2013 |
06/07/13 |
| World Development |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk-rejected in 10 days |
2013 |
06/07/13 |
| World Development |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Took over three months to get a desk reject - 0 comments |
2020 |
01/07/21 |
| World Development |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
6 weeks for desk reject. |
2019 |
06/21/19 |
| World Politics |
Pending |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
03/15/13 |
| World Politics |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Great reviews, quick turnaround after R&R |
2013 |
09/12/14 |
| World Politics |
Accepted |
10 |
2 |
3 |
Slooooooow first round. Efficient for the next two rounds. Very responsive editorial office. |
2017 |
11/23/18 |
| World Politics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
2012 |
03/26/13 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Long delay till MS. was sent out for review, but referees turned it around pretty quickly. One critical but constructive review; one obtuse and dismissive one. |
2020 |
04/15/21 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fair reviews, helpful |
2013 |
01/11/14 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2012 |
03/27/13 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Horribly slow and two of the three reviews were of shockingly poor quality. One of the reviewers clearly had not read the manuscript, as almost everything they asked for in terms of changes was already in the manuscript or robustness checks. Not worth the wait. |
2017 |
06/08/18 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Terribly managed. Avoid. One excellent review, another shockingly bad, clear they didn't read it. Will avoid citing anything from this journal and submitting to it in the future. |
2016 |
08/18/16 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One review was useless, one was okay. Certainly not worth the wait. Bad idea to submit here while on TT. |
2016 |
10/03/16 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One ref suggested R&R with great suggestions, another rejected based on minimal methodological issues. Editor sided with the second reviewer. If you're on the job market, you might want to try your chances elsewhere. |
2020 |
10/22/20 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Terrible reviewers. Easily the worst administratively managed journal out there. I've submitted twice now and had terrible experiences both times. My colleagues have some serious horror stories. Avoid, if you can. |
2014 |
08/20/15 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
First reviewer quite positive. Second reviewer negative citing minor methodological representation issues and failure to cite stuff that came out around/after article was sent for review. |
2016 |
10/03/16 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One R&R, one reject. Reviewers had quants understanding of 6th graders. Editorial board took 7 weeks to convey decision after reviews were in. Won't be submitting again anytime soon. |
2015 |
08/21/15 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
3 |
super slow review, 2 positive reviews, one short negative review |
2012 |
03/18/13 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
3 |
Sat on referee reports for 6 months to lead to a shockingly slow first round. Shoddy reports, editors did not seem to read them. Appalling-- will avoid sending anything here ever again. |
2018 |
10/20/19 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Efficient, fair review |
2015 |
04/22/16 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Both negative reviews. The first reviewer was quite constructive and suggested to submit the manuscript to field journals. The second reviewer criticized for not having cited certain articles (probably his own). Overall some usefull comments, but long waiting time. |
2015 |
01/31/16 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Two referees recommended R&R. One referee recommended reject. |
2010 |
03/14/13 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewers recommended R&Rs and seemed to like the idea. Mostly methods quibbles. Editor rejected with one comment that seemed at odds with what reviewers wrote. |
2018 |
07/19/19 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2014 |
12/12/14 |
| World Politics |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Both negative reviews. One quite useful review, one more scattered (and more negative) one. |
2015 |
01/19/16 |
| World Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
12 days before desk reject. too narrow |
2016 |
05/19/16 |
| World Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject with boilerplate and nothing helpful in three days. Must not be in the club. |
2021 |
02/26/21 |
| World Politics |
Desk Reject |
6 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 6 months. They can go to hell. |
2014 |
12/11/14 |
| World Politics |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject in a little over a week. |
2015 |
10/28/15 |
| World Politics |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 2 months, no explanation |
2019 |
07/10/19 |