JournalReviewer 

Health Promotion Practice.

(Sage Publications)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 94 days (SD = 0)
Review length 407 words (SD = 0)
Review quality 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Would submit again 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Journal recommendation 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report including 1 review)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 407 words (SD = 0)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Editors
Length 56 words (SD = 0)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
After three months, we received the rejection letter accompany the feedback from a single reviewer.

Ignoring the major problem with the use of a single reviewer, the comments offered by said reviewer (all 5 of them) were overwhelmingly positive. The only revision suggested by the reviewer entailed presenting extra information about the sample and descriptive
statistics.
Nonetheless, the editor issued the following verdict:
'In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in Health Promotion Practice.

We emailed the editor asking for additional feedback, and never received a response.
The editor was both unprofessional in ignoring a reasonable request and broke ranks with conventions surrounding the peer review process.






Suggest Journal

Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!