JournalReviewer 

Games and Culture.

(Sage)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 287 days (SD = 167)
Review length 286 words (SD = 252)
Review quality 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Overall quality 1.8 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Would submit again 1.8 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Journal recommendation 1.8 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
(based on 6 reports including 9 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate 63 days (SD = 0)
Plausibility 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report)


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 286 words (SD = 252)
Overall tone Neutral (modal)
Knowledge 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Helpfulness 3 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Overall quality 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Editors
Length 313 words (SD = 0)
Decision Revise&Resubmit (modal)
Plausibility 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.8)
Helpfulness 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.4)
Fairness 1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Overall quality 1.5 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 110 days (SD = 51)
(based on 2 reports including 5 reviews)

Reviewers
Length 260 words (SD = 118)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Consistency 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.4)
Overall quality 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Editors
Length 168 words (SD = 93)
Decision Minor Revision (modal)
Plausibility 4 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
Helpfulness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Sage uses an automated system for submissions, which is logical, but very formulaic and laborous to use, requiring very specific forms of files and metadata.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
Speedy reviewing and interesting comments from reviewers. Despite the fact that both reviewers differed tremendously in their advice, no editor comments were added. This leaves us in the dark on what route to follow in revising.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
One and a half year and many, many e-mails to the journal (very few of which I received any reply to) I received a reject based on one review. The reviewer had no knowledge or interest in quantitative methods what so ever. I very much doubt that I will ever submit to this journal again.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
After more than 15 months (and numerous reminders to the editor with no response), I finally received a decision on my manuscript: reject. There was only 1 reviewer and no comments whatsoever from the editor. However the reviewer gave some useful tips for improving the literature review, she or he did not have any knowledge regarding the statistical analyses. The reviewer ends the review saying that this paper is not suited to this particular journal. Case closed. I personally thought this was a loss of time and will never submit to this journal again.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
The first review round was ok, the second wasn't at all. In the first phase, the first review was quite helpful, the second just included 2 sentences.

Both review rounds took forever (whole process lasted over 1 year) and there wasn't even a review in the second round.

The second review process ended with a rejection based on "....does not fit scope"

If this is the case, why wasn't it a desk rejcetion? This submission was a waste of time for everyone. We will never submitt here again.



  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
I submitted to this journal and 9 weeks later I got a desk reject. In that time I could have submitted to another journal and received a response.

The desk reject email was canned text and the editor did not even apologize for the delay. Extremely unprofessional and I avoid this journal at all costs.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5  (still under review)
Games and Culture has suffered some sort of meltdown and my paper was accepted for review but not sent out to reviewers, and it's been over 10 months. Apparently the publisher has gotten involved. Sage has also outsourced some of their editing to India and these poor people either send you boilerplate emails about how they are working on fixing the problem when this is not true or they ignore you -- how they are actually supposed to help you when they have no leverage is beyond me. What I mean is, they've been hired since they speak English but are paid cheaply, and with little pay apparently comes little respect from Sage and the journal editor. They can send you all the reassuring emails they like, but at the end of the day the journal editor and Sage ignore them completely.

I still have not received reviews, but am hoping the publisher will straighten things out.

Unless the head editor, Douglas Thomas of USC, is replaced, I will never submit to this journal again. I don't care that the founded the journal, this is unprofessional.






Suggest Journal

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