Analysis

-

The comments were overall polite but of poor philosophical quality. They also contained bibliographic inaccuracies, which makes me question whether the reviewer was an expert in either of the subfields my paper discussed.

-

-

The production team took 8 months to typeset the paper, with errors remaining.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

One decent set of comments (with reasonable objections leading to rejection) supplied. Editor supplied further comments (also helpful).

-

-

My paper argues against a view that assumes A, and I argue that A leads to some undesirable result. The reviewer objects: but A is false. :/ While I appreciate the time and effort the reviewer put into reading and reviewing my paper, they unfortunately did not read it closely enough to follow the dialectic or to read the footnotes which address several of the reviewer's other points.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

You don't need 3.5 months to read a four-page paper, do you?

-

-

-

-

-

Glad for the quick rejection. The reason was that the paper felt like a response piece. It isn't, and is now accepted at a journal of roughly equal (or slightly better) stature.