-

-

-

-

-

The first verdict was "reject and resubmit". It took three months, the comments were very helpful, and I was given one year to resubmit. Both stressed the paper's originality. I resubmitted after a year with a letter addressing the changes to the new editorial board. The second verdict was "reject". It took four months, and I received two sets of comments. The first, from one of the original reviewers, was six paragraphs long and seemed to be an acceptance. It acknowledged each change and expressed satisfaction with them. The second one, from a third new reviewer, was a one-paragraph-long, very poor comment. The reason for rejection was a lack of originality. The philosophers they referred to are among those I engaged with in the paper. The editor's reason for rejection was how divided the reviewers were.

Overall, my experience with AJP was good. My two main suggestions concern timing and the quality of reviews. Starting with the latter, one reviewer's comments were extremely helpful and thoughtful (maybe the best I have encountered). The other, however, was short and not very helpful. Regarding timing, I submitted my manuscript here because of the short timeframe for the first verdict (~3 months) mentioned here and on their website. However, it took them more than 6 months to find referees, and 9 to send a verdict. Nonetheless, I appreciated that the editor's decision letter was transparent and clear. He mentioned that, due to the high volume of submissions, AJP publishes only papers for which both reviewers strongly recommend publication.

'Exceptionally busy'

-

-

-

-

-

-