JournalReviewer 

International Journal of Communication.

(University of Southern California, USC Annenberg Press)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 160 days (SD = 151)
Review length 966 words (SD = 688)
Review quality 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Would submit again 4 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Journal recommendation 4 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
(based on 3 reports including 5 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 966 words (SD = 688)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Editors
Length 139 words (SD = 114)
Decision Revise&Resubmit (modal)
Plausibility 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
Helpfulness 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
Fairness 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
Overall quality 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 111 days (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews)

Reviewers
Length n/a
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge n/a
Helpfulness n/a
Fairness n/a
Consistency n/a
Overall quality n/a
Editors
Length n/a
Decision Accept (modal)
Plausibility n/a
Helpfulness n/a
Fairness n/a
Overall quality n/a
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
Very quick and helpful review process. First round decision was accepted with minor changes. Reviewer had very instructive comments to improve the paper. We reflected that in our revised version, and added an action letter with re-submission. Upon re-submission we received final acceptance within 24 hours. Copyediting and formatting took a while then, but overall a great process. Submission to Publication turnaround was 4 month.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5  (still under review)
This is a typical example for a journal that had excellent, i.e., very detailed, critical, useful and constructive, reviews but I'd still not recommend to submit to. The problem was the horriblly long waiting process and the organization of the review process.
8 (!) months after initially submitting the paper we were told to shorten it some 500 words and that it would enter the review process only then. After shortening and re-submitting, we waited another 3 to 3,5 months to get the initial reviews. We had three long and substantial reviews that were quite critical of our approach. Still, we got the chance to revise and resubmit. Interestingly, we were only given a very narrow time frame for the resubmission. After resubmission we have been waiting another 2 months already without any notification.
Although the quality and accuracy of the reviews was very good, the whole organization and waiting process destroyed the positive experience.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
They are quick, editor is helpful.





Suggest Journal

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