European Journal of Communication.
(Sage)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 108 days (SD = 19) |
| Review length | 148 words (SD = 146) |
| Review quality | 1.8 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Journal recommendation | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 3 reports including 4 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | 26 days (SD = 2) |
| Plausibility | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
(based on 2 reports) |
|
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 148 words (SD = 146) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 1.8 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Helpfulness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.4) |
| Overall quality | 1.8 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 36 words (SD = 35) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 1.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Fairness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
We only received comments from one reviewer (and no information on whether any others had been consulted). The standard rejection note by an editorial assistant contained no indication that she had looked at either the paper nor at the review itself (which was more a rejection of our research field in general than of our paper - whose ideas and methods it actually praised quite enthusiastically!). The note also informed us that "the editors cannot enter into correspondence about your article following this letter".
We only received comments from one reviewer (and no information on whether any others had been consulted). The standard rejection note by an editorial assistant contained no indication that she had looked at either the paper nor at the review itself (which was more a rejection of our research field in general than of our paper - whose ideas and methods it actually praised quite enthusiastically!). The note also informed us that "the editors cannot enter into correspondence about your article following this letter".
· Plausibility: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
I thought this was long for a desk reject.
Second, the editor gives literally no real argument for the decision. The only sentence was : "The Co-Editors have discussed the manuscript and have agreed that the article is not suitable for the readership and remit of the European Journal of Communication."
I thought this was long for a desk reject.
Second, the editor gives literally no real argument for the decision. The only sentence was : "The Co-Editors have discussed the manuscript and have agreed that the article is not suitable for the readership and remit of the European Journal of Communication."
· Plausibility: 3 / 5 (desk reject)
Even though the reasons for the desk reject were plausible and some of the short comments by the editors contained helpful information, the overall tone of the feedback was quite negative and - to be honest - rude.
Even though the reasons for the desk reject were plausible and some of the short comments by the editors contained helpful information, the overall tone of the feedback was quite negative and - to be honest - rude.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
I was surprised about the review process within this journal. I was something in between a desk-rejection and a review process as one of the co-editors wrote one review. Usually you get desk rejections when you do not fit the aims and scope of the paper, which was not the case. The review of course than wasn't blind. Although it was substantial, the overall tone was not very kind. If the review process is always like this, I wouldn't recommend that journal
I was surprised about the review process within this journal. I was something in between a desk-rejection and a review process as one of the co-editors wrote one review. Usually you get desk rejections when you do not fit the aims and scope of the paper, which was not the case. The review of course than wasn't blind. Although it was substantial, the overall tone was not very kind. If the review process is always like this, I wouldn't recommend that journal
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
I have submitted to dozens of journals before, and this was one of the least valuable. I received two "reviews" of 2-3 sentences each, and no further explanations by the editor. It is absolutely ok to get a reject, happens all the time, but this journal did a bad job, really. It is hard to explain why the editor only sent 2-3 sentences of each reviewer.
Later on, this paper got published somewhere else, after a construcive round of reviews and substantial feedback.
I have submitted to dozens of journals before, and this was one of the least valuable. I received two "reviews" of 2-3 sentences each, and no further explanations by the editor. It is absolutely ok to get a reject, happens all the time, but this journal did a bad job, really. It is hard to explain why the editor only sent 2-3 sentences of each reviewer.
Later on, this paper got published somewhere else, after a construcive round of reviews and substantial feedback.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion