JournalReviewer 

Communication Research.

(Sage Publications)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 109 days (SD = 33)
Review length 1039 words (SD = 279)
Review quality 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1)
Overall quality 4 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Would submit again 4.1 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
Journal recommendation 4.1 / 5 (SD = 0.8)
(based on 7 reports including 15 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a


Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers
Length 1039 words (SD = 279)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Helpfulness 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Fairness 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Overall quality 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1)
Editors
Length 485 words (SD = 394)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.9)
Fairness 4.3 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Overall quality 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 73 days (SD = 1)
(based on 2 reports including 4 reviews)

Reviewers
Length 810 words (SD = 612)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 4.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Consistency 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Editors
Length 752 words (SD = 0)
Decision Accept (modal)
Plausibility 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 5 / 5 (SD = 0)
Comments
  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
I was never able to receive the second reviewer's comments, despite requests.


  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
Comm Research continues to be the best top-tier journal in Communication. Reviews are relatively fast and typically high quality. Regardless of acceptance you will get good, thoughtful feedback that will help you improve your paper considerably.

For this paper, Shoemaker was the editor and she was great--efficient and supportive.

I don't know what this journal does to operate so smoothly, but it's a major asset to the field and I wish more journals would learn from it.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
We submitted three manuscripts to CR in the past three years or so and had a total of 7 reviews. The first one was accepted, while the other two were rejected.

The first manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field. It was fair and good. All the comments were relevant and fair, although a few comments were related to misunderstanding (either we were not clear or reviewers didn't have knowledge on these points). Editor Roloff guided the revision process well. It was a good experience.

We decided to try our luck with CR and submitted the second manuscript. The manuscript was rejected. Reviewers mentioned a few good, relevant points. Overall, they believe the issues were more serious than they actually were. By the way, CR has many levels of recommendations, such as revise and resubmit--it's a long shot, good manuscript, if suitable revised. We probably got it's a long shot recommendations from two reviewers and one reject, so the ms got rejected. No issues with this submission. (The paper ended up with a good journal).

We were more excited about the third manuscript than the second one. But two reviewers did not provide any helpful comments. And the paper got rejected. Dr. Shoemaker handled this piece. No issues with her. But sometimes even for a top-tier journal, the review process is like roll of the dice.




  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
I had a great experience with this journal. Dr. Roloff especially was fantastic to work with.

The reviews were very helpful and produced a high quality manuscript. I have already resubmitted to this journal and recommend it to people with innovative ideas.



  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
This review process is a good example for why this website here exists. While the comments were helpful in some ways, the biggest crititism expressed by both reviewers was the lack of significant findings. One reviewer expresses his or her disappointment over this in particular because of the large number of measurements. The statistical non-significance of our findings is described as uninformative. One review is also rather contradictive in these terms, as it is first praising the methodological rigor and innovativeness, and then later on it criticizes that they convey little meaningful information. The other review is mostly (and admittedly correctly) concerned with the lack of theory (and theory development) within our manuscript. It should be noted, in all fairness, that this manuscript was supposed to have a strong methodological focus. We are thankful for this reviewer's recommendations to improve on reporting possible theoretical insights gained from our research.





Suggest Journal

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