JournalReviewer 

Media Psychology.

(Taylor & Francis)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 127 days (SD = 77)
Review length 1354 words (SD = 1011)
Review quality 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Overall quality 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Would submit again 2.4 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Journal recommendation 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
(based on 7 reports including 13 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate 74 days (SD = 0)
Plausibility 2 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report)


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 1354 words (SD = 1011)
Overall tone Negative (modal)
Knowledge 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Helpfulness 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1.1)
Fairness 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Overall quality 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Editors
Length 372 words (SD = 193)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 3.2 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Helpfulness 2.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Fairness 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Overall quality 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 33 days (SD = 38)
(based on 1 report including 4 reviews)

Reviewers
Length 330 words (SD = 360)
Overall tone Neutral (modal)
Knowledge 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Consistency 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Editors
Length 254 words (SD = 169)
Decision Minor Revision (modal)
Plausibility 2 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Helpfulness 1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
My experience with Media Psychology was interesting. I submitted a paper in August, I believe. And a few weeks later, I was asked to review for MP by one of the associate editors--I took it as a good sign.

In November, another associate editor emailed me and asked me why I didn't respond to his message sent a month earlier and if I ever received the email. I was excited this time because if my paper had been rejected, the AE wouldn't bother to follow up.

I replied "No, I haven't." So the AE resent the message (the system showed the message was sent in November only). It was reject and resubmit. And I was given four months to collect additional data.

The AE was extremely nice and polite in his correspondence and told me he really liked my paper, but my research was a survey (not an experiment). If I were to rewrite the survey part as a pilot study and collect experimental data, he would send it for review.

Then finally, I realized my paper got desk-rejected because it was a survey, in 3 months.

Sorry about this relatively long review--I guess I can go write a novel now.




  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
After more than nine month the editor sent us the wrong review.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Very long turnaround time for a paper Reviewer 2 thinks should have been a desk reject (and says little more past that). Would have rather had desk reject 8 months ago if indeed paper is not suitable for the journal scope (as R2 suggests). Will indeed resubmit - at another journal.


  ·  Plausibility: 2 / 5  (desk reject)
Very friendly, long letter from one of editors, which I absolutely disagree with, but can respect. The study tested a very popular psychology theory using both perception and behavioral data over the period of three months with the addition of a novel moderating variable that is not part of the theory. The editor argued that "In general, most of the studies that are reported in the journal test and develop theories by proposing mechanisms or processes in the effects tradition, which usually involves experimental research."

The editor is a hard-core experimentalist, so this desk reject reflected, above anything, philosophical differences on what "contribution to theory" really means. The editor was looking for a more controlled studies testing a specific mechanism, while the paper was using real behavioral data and measured (not manipulated) variables to test theory.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
My overall impression of this journal was really positive after the first round. The two reviews were favourable and the decision (R&R) only took two months.
After that, we followed the suggestions of both reviewers, collected more data, added hypotheses for each single comparison and submitted a revised version. We got a Minor Revision afterwards although reviewer 2 was a new one to the manuscript and had some further suggestions he said the paper was "close to publication quality". We addressed his concerns as well and submitted again.
Four days later we got an email by the editor who said that she had just read the paper and made some informal comments in the paper (track changes in the .doc file) and rated it again "Minor Revisions". Her comments were against some points the reviewers suggested but we followed her recommendation and added a new analysis as well as excluded one theory she did not like (although both reviewers wanted us to implement it stronger).

After that, the editor rejected the manuscript. She did not send it to the reviewers (I know as is common in a minor revision) but then based the rejection on 1) some hypotheses were not supported (which is surprising in itself and even more based on the facts the reviewers additionally wanted us to add hypotheses) and 2) the second part of our path model (in addition to 5 ANOVAS and SHE wanted the path model) did only reach marginal significance (p = .06). The first part of our path model was fully supported though...
We as authors were left thinking she simply doesn't like the line of research (she usually studies a different paradigm). It was a very displeasant experience, it took 1.5 years, the reviewers' tone was positive and I have never experienced the process of Revise & Resubmit, Minor 1, Minor 2, Reject.
I don't generalize this to the journal as a whole but just think it was a very unprofessional handling.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
We received two very insightful reviews and helpful editorial comments with interesting comments that will in fact improve the manuscript and hopefully lead to an acceptance at another venue. Even in the face of the negative verdict, I was quite pleased with this review process as the decision was plausible. However, it took about 4 months until we heard back from the editor, which - given the moderate length of the reviews - seemed a bit too long.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
From my experience with this journal it appears to be unlikely that they accept empirical papers based solely on single experiments.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
I have mixed feelings about this review process. I was positively suprirsed about the very short turnaround time (less than a month), especially considering the length of the two reviews received. Review 1 was extremely negative about the submission and mentioned a lot of aspects that indeed could be criticized about the mansucript, but also comments that were heavily biased ("there is no doubt that..."). There were almost no suggestions made how the manuscript could be improved. I therefore got the impression that it was our results that were not to the liking of reviewer 1, rather than the scientific quality. Reviewer 2 also had a lot of things to criticize, but provided some helpful suggestions how those could be addressed in a revision of the manuscript. Editorial comments and editing of the reviews was almost nonexistent even though the two reviews differed in their recommendations. While the length of the reviews was definitely "enough" as feedback to further work on the manuscript, some editorial feedback or explicit weighting of particular issues with the submission would have been helpful.





Suggest Journal

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