Feminist Media Studies.
(Routledge)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 22 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 512 words (SD = 192) |
| Review quality | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 512 words (SD = 192) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 230 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (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: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
Considering the reputation that this journal has, of being overwhelmed with submissions and thus necessarily slow to respond, I was pleasantly surprised by the very short turn-around time on this review.
Though I was asked to make major revisions, I was also pleased by the reviews, as both reviewers provided me with directions for revision that were meaningful. They were not necessarily equally helpful, though, as I found the first review to be more along the lines of a political and theoretical disagreement. This of course provides me with insights into where I need to provide further substantiation of my points, but it doesn't really read like a review, more like a debate.
The second, review, however, was very thoughtful, helpful, and written in a collegial manner, which I greatly appreciate. It really seemed that the reviewer took the time to think about how the paper would look when it was in shape for publication.
Overall, I'd wholeheartedly recommend this journal.
Considering the reputation that this journal has, of being overwhelmed with submissions and thus necessarily slow to respond, I was pleasantly surprised by the very short turn-around time on this review.
Though I was asked to make major revisions, I was also pleased by the reviews, as both reviewers provided me with directions for revision that were meaningful. They were not necessarily equally helpful, though, as I found the first review to be more along the lines of a political and theoretical disagreement. This of course provides me with insights into where I need to provide further substantiation of my points, but it doesn't really read like a review, more like a debate.
The second, review, however, was very thoughtful, helpful, and written in a collegial manner, which I greatly appreciate. It really seemed that the reviewer took the time to think about how the paper would look when it was in shape for publication.
Overall, I'd wholeheartedly recommend this journal.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion