JournalReviewer 

Personality and Individual Differences.

(Elsevier)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 93 days (SD = 53)
Review length n/a
Review quality 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Would submit again 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Journal recommendation 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
(based on 2 reports including 2 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate 29 days (SD = 0)
Plausibility 2 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 1 report)


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length n/a
Overall tone Negative (modal)
Knowledge 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Overall quality 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Editors
Length n/a
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 4 / 5 (SD = 1)
Helpfulness 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
This journal generally has very good turnaround times. I publish in it regularly.
However, one of their reviewers (who is also an AE) is problematic. He always signs his reviews [individual name redacted].
Essentially, he refuses to publish anything that does not align with his own view of the topic. He also has (incorrect) ideas about APA and presentation of stats and figures that he insists are incorporated in revisions. His reviews are dismissive and unprofessional.
I am surprised that the rest of the editorial team (who are usually excellent) do not have him under better control, or more insight into the problems [individual name redacted] is making for researchers attempting to publish in his area.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
I have submitted multiple papers to this journal. It has become my go-to place if a top tier journal rejects my paper. The reviews are quick, always returned in 1-3 months. There is almost never a second round of reviews. The editors have the courage to make decisions, which is why they are hired as editors.

Also, because of the 5000 word limit, you do not have reviewers that ask you to babble incessantly and cite articles that you never read because the reviewer thinks you should have been influenced by them.

Nothing but positive experiences.
In fact, I even had a few papers rejected and when I appealed what I thought were unfair reviews, the editor always responded in a thoughtful, fair manner (sometimes in my favor and sometimes not).






Suggest Journal

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