|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|
|European Management Journal||15.4 wks||27.9 wks||n/a||2||4 (very good)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|European Management Journal||8.4 wks||n/a||n/a||2||3 (good)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Motivation: As authors we made a major effort addressing all comments to satisfaction and, as recommended, had an external expert review the manuscript before resubmission. This journal has policy to give authors only one round of revision. In case a (conditional) accept is not reached within that time frame, the editor will reject. In my view, a very fair and good policy.
In case of our paper, one reviewer was satisfied and recommended an accept. However, the other reviewer introduced various new comments that actually pertained to aspects of the manuscript that had not changed relative to the originally submitted version. Hence, this reviewer had withheld comments (probably without any wrong intentions) thereby rendering us unable to anticipate/handle them in the only round of revision that the journal offers. Hence, his/her recommendation to the editor was another revision (albeit that all suggestions were easy fixes).
The editor did not take this into account in decision-making and because one reviewer suggested a revision the paper was rejected.