JournalReviewer 

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator.

(Sage)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 146 days (SD = 0)
Review length 130 words (SD = 15)
Review quality 1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Would submit again 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Journal recommendation 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 2 reports including 3 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 130 words (SD = 15)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 2.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Helpfulness 2 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Fairness 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Overall quality 1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Editors
Length 107 words (SD = 0)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness 1.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate n/a
(based on 1 report including 1 review)

Reviewers
Length n/a
Overall tone Negative (modal)
Knowledge 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Consistency 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Editors
Length n/a
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 addressing all of the reviewers' concerns, the editor's decision was "reject" based on fatal flaws in methodology. If the methodology was so badly flawed, do you THINK that you could have mentioned that with the initial review and just given me a desk rejection? Never submitting here again.





Suggest Journal

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