|Journal title||Average duration||Review reports (1st review rnd.)|
|(click to go to journal page)||1st rev. rnd||Tot. handling||Im. rejection||Number||Quality||Overall rating||Outcome|
|Acta Sociologica||8.0 wks||22.7 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: Pretty good experience overall.|
|Acta Sociologica||12.4 wks||12.4 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||4 (very good)||Rejected|
|Motivation: One review was thorough and helpful.
The other was a "you did not use my favorite theories" complaint, with little demonstration that my article was actually read.
|Acta Sociologica||25.4 wks||33.6 wks||n/a||3||4 (very good)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The reviews were of a high quality, after the reviews were received the communication with the journal was very constructive and the final decision was made relatively fast.|
|Acta Sociologica||26.0 wks||29.0 wks||n/a||3||5 (excellent)||4 (very good)||Accepted|
|Motivation: The comments of the reviewers were actually great (very appropriatly selected by the editor). They helped to improve the paper considerably. Also both editors give a lot of suggestions and comments in each round. Only drawback is the long period.|
|Acta Sociologica||26.0 wks||26.0 wks||n/a||2||1 (bad)||1 (bad)||Rejected|