Reviews for "New Testament Studies"

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
New Testament Studies 8.4 wks 8.4 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Rejected
Motivation: The journal handled the manuscript promptly, courteously, and professionally. The reviewer report that I received interacted with the article in detail and specificity, commenting on its strengths and weaknesses in organization, argument, discussion of primary literature, and interaction with secondary literature. I have consequently been able to revise my article according to all of the comments I received from the reviewer and have submitted it to another journal.
New Testament Studies 16.9 wks 16.9 wks n/a 1 4 (very good) 5 (excellent) Accepted
Motivation: The review was detailed, perceptive, and helpful. The reviewer spent more time discussing specific details (esp. minutiae pertaining to the data such as presentation and accuracy) than the overall argument, with which he/she seemed to have been in agreement (maybe that's why?). The review was well-informed and enhanced the article (not to mention that it spared the author from several errors, some of them embarrassing). What was particularly superb about this publishing experience was the most excellent copy-editing, for which the journal utilises the famous Dr Iveta Adams of CUP. It is for a good reason that NTS is considered the top-tier journal in the field. Every detail receives adequate attention.