JournalReviewer 

Mass Communication & Society.

(Taylor & Francis)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 83 days (SD = 3)
Review length 1373 words (SD = 198)
Review quality 3.8 / 5 (SD = 1.1)
Overall quality 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Would submit again 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Journal recommendation 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
(based on 3 reports including 4 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate 57 days (SD = 0)
Plausibility 3 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report)


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 1373 words (SD = 198)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Helpfulness 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Fairness 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Overall quality 3.8 / 5 (SD = 1.1)
Editors
Length 112 words (SD = 0)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Helpfulness 1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Fairness 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Overall quality 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 37 days (SD = 25)
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews)

Reviewers
Length 1 words (SD = 0)
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 1 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
Despite the typical delay in review time, only a single reviewer was selected, and the refereed comments were overwhelmingly positive. Nonetheless the (guest) editor rendered a rejection verdict without substantiation or responding to our appeal for clarification. " Unfortunately, it does not meet the standard and criteria for this journal."
Having published in/reviewed for this venue, I'm dismayed by the shoddy turn of events that transpired in handling our MS. We will shop it elsewhere. with what I suspect to be great success



  ·  Plausibility: 3 / 5  (desk reject)
Got a desk reject from the editor after 7-8 weeks. The desk reject was based on a perceived lack of quality of the paper and not due to issues of match.

The editor's mini review had around 100 words. It consisted of 1-2 sentences in which he generally evaluated the quality of the study as well as 1-2 sentences in which he gave examples for the points of criticism.

The remarks raised a number of valid points and helped in reworking the paper. Therefore, it would have been appreciated if he had named a few more tangible examples (since he explicitly introduced them as examples).




  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
Rejection aside, I had a good review experience with this journal. The turn-around time was great. The reviews were very detailed and specific. This good feedback really made it apparent to me why my manuscript wasn't the best fit for the journal. In the end, I was comfortable with the decision and realized I probably should not have sent the manuscript to MC&S to begin with. But I don't regret it. The solid feedback made it very easy for me to revise the manuscript for another journal based on their comments.





Suggest Journal

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