In an earlier article in this journal1 we presented data obtained from two psychology journals suggesting that in one of them (Psychological Science), but not the other (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin), it might be wise not to submit during the summer months. We based this conclusion on a discrepancy we observed: while contributors to PS submit mostly in the summertime, the number of accepted papers does not vary across the months of the year. For PSPB we did not observe a similar pattern. After considering additional alternatives, we proposed that the difference between the editorial policies between the journals having (vs. not having) a strict desk rejection policy might account for this discrepancy. Simply put, we suggested that as contributions pile on the editorial desk in the summer the editor might be quicker to reject work that in other months of the year might be sent out for review. In a reply, James Hartley2 seems to agree with our proposition that editorial policies are likely to influence the likelihood of acceptance. However, he rejects our notion that overloading the editor’s desk might be one of them. To support his view, Hartley challenges the robustness of our conclusion. Specifically, he questions to what extent we may generalize our findings which are based on one journal, PS, with its specific characteristics (e.g. 12 issues per year, high rate of submission) to other journals with other characteristics (e.g. bimonthly or quarterly). We absolutely agree. We observed a discrepancy between submissions and acceptance only in this one journal. This does not mean that such discrepancy is widespread nor does it mean that it is a rare exception. It does indicate that this is a possible factor influencing what is important to many of us: the likelihood that our papers will be accepted. A factor that to our knowledge was not discussed or thoroughly analysed before. Taking an initial step in the direction of addressing this possibility, Hartley was able to acquire data from three academic journals. The fact that in these journals no seasonal research rhythms were observed is encouraging, but still far from conclusive, especially because desk rejection policies were not a factor in his analyses. As we proposed earlier, editors should be the first to desire a better understanding of irrelevant factors that might interfere with their decision to accept or reject a paper. We believe that editorial boards should openly discuss data regarding months of submission and acceptance allowing themselves, and contributors, to verify that indeed quality is all that matters. Providing important insight as to how future investigation of seasonal effects should be conducted, Hartley points to the definition of ‘summer’ and ‘winter’ and the hemispheric component that is entangled in it. We followed the approach used in the PS editorial3 and defined summer based on the US semester pattern (i.e. the northern hemisphere). As the majority of submission to PS (59%) arrives from within the US and certainly many more arrive from Europe, the analysis is predominantly northern in nature. Future investigations into these rhythms should obviously consider this issue.