JournalReviewer 

Information, Communication & Society.

(Routledge)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 72 days (SD = 6)
Review length 773 words (SD = 566)
Review quality 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Overall quality 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Would submit again 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Journal recommendation 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
(based on 2 reports including 3 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 773 words (SD = 566)
Overall tone Neutral (modal)
Knowledge 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
Helpfulness 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Fairness 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
Overall quality 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Editors
Length 177 words (SD = 84)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Helpfulness 2 / 5 (SD = 1)
Fairness 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Overall quality 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
The decision to reject the manuscript was based on only one (short, 88 (!) words) review that praised its relevance, the "strong theoretical impetus" and the usefulness for social media researchers. The negative decision was solely based on the fact that we used structural equation modeling on a non-random sample. According to the reviewer, "the methodology of the study is a significant drawback that overrides the otherwise good aspects of the paper."

The generaliziability of the findings, of course, is limited due to the non-random sample. However, we discussed these problems in the manuscript. I understand that some journals attach great importance to the generaliziability of findings and do not allow studies based on non-random samples. Information, Communication & Society, however, does not explicitly require non-random samples (see their guidelines for authors). Furthermore, a quick search showed that the journal released several papers that used statistical analyses like SEM, regressions, or correlations on non-random samples. Hence, I cannot understand the decision to reject the paper.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
The submission and review process for this journal was very fair and well organized. We received extremely helpful and detailed feedback that was constructive and encouraging and helped to substantially improve the quality of the paper.
The editor [individual name redacted] followed the reviewer comments. Interestingly, the decision was a "reject and resubmit", which seems an odd category and probably serves to lower the acceptance rate of the journal (because "reject/resubmit" submissions might be counted as rejects, even though they are actually revise and resubmit). After we implemented the feedback, the article was accepted without further reviews, approximately 2 months after the re-submission.
Given the professional and excellent review process and the steadily growing reputation of the journal, this one will certainly become only more important in the domain of Internet and society/computer-mediated communication.






Suggest Journal

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