JournalReviewer 

Psychology of Popular Media Culture.

(American Psychological Association)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 115 days (SD = 47)
Review length 494 words (SD = 368)
Review quality 4.1 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Overall quality 3.8 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Would submit again 4.3 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Journal recommendation 4.4 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
(based on 8 reports including 20 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 494 words (SD = 368)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4.1 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Helpfulness 4.1 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Fairness 4.1 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Overall quality 4.1 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Editors
Length 342 words (SD = 212)
Decision Revise&Resubmit (modal)
Plausibility 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Helpfulness 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Fairness 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Overall quality 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 58 days (SD = 30)
(based on 5 reports including 12 reviews)

Reviewers
Length 379 words (SD = 525)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.1)
Helpfulness 3.9 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Fairness 4.3 / 5 (SD = 1.1)
Consistency 4.2 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Overall quality 3.8 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Editors
Length 239 words (SD = 346)
Decision Minor Revision (modal)
Plausibility 4.2 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Helpfulness 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Fairness 4.2 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Overall quality 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Took a very long time to get the reviews back, but when they did there were three reviews, all mostly positive. One reviewer asked to re-write the paper in passive voice "per APA guidelines"--even though APA explicitly requires active voice, which was echoed by the editor. Not wanting to argue, we rewrote it into a slightly less comprehensible paper. Editor said she would send the paper back to one old reviewer and no new reviewers, and instead sent it back to one old review and two new ones. After another revision addressing concerns of the new reviewers (one of whom wasn't familiar with the stats used in the paper), the paper was ultimately accepted. Also, editor did not remove the names of reviewers from the meta information in word documents, so the identity of the reviewers who attached their review as a word document was visible.. something to keep in mind.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
The initial review process took forever - this might have been due to the very special topic of this paper. We liked that we received 3 reviews in both rounds. Two reviews were always very positive but did not provide help to improve the paper while one review offered a lot of help (resulting in a lot of work :)). Unfortunately the second Email included a R&R and we did not check the system in which the actual status was a minor revision. The last review round only took 4 hours - that was quite nice.
If you submit here, always check the submission system for the actual status.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
The journal was good to get published in. My main gripe/concern was the length of period it took to get it online (5 months). For research, this is unacceptable. After much contact with the paper and the editing agency and after many conversations with everyone about the date it would be available, I finally was given a date....and then 2 months after that date it was finally available for publication. If you don't mind waiting for the editing of this paper, submit, it was a good experience.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Both reviews were very brief. We were a bit puzzled by the editorial decision (revise & resubmit) gven that Reviewer 1 had no comments and saw the manuscript fit for publication in its current status and Reviewer 2 mostly asked for minor revisions. Still, the second review provided some very helpful comments on how to improve our theory and discussion sections and the editor made it clear that a resubmission after revision will likely be successful.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5  (still under review)
The review process was longer than the average but I asked the Editorial Office once and got a very quick response telling me that the Editor was slower than usual due to a move. I think this is a special situation which is not typical for the journal. Further, it "only" took the journal 3 months for a decision, other journals take longer without having that kind of excuse...


  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
I received three reviews with moderate length on my manuscript in after about 5 weeks. All three reviews had some minor issues with the manuscript, but were overall positive. All three of them had some further ideas for the manuscript's discussion section that I believe are all really contributing to its overall quality. The editor seemed to agree with the reviewers, but instead of conditionally accepting the manuscript (provided we would take care of the minor revisions), the final verdict was a "revise & resubmit". The editor explicitly mentioned that we are encouraged to resubmit it, given that all reviews were positive. This is what we did, and after another 6 weeks the manuscript was accepted without further revisions (minor or major).





Suggest Journal

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