International Journal of Press/Politics.
(Sage)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 70 days (SD = 35) |
| Review length | 888 words (SD = 87) |
| Review quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.4) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Journal recommendation | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 5 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 888 words (SD = 87) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.4) |
| Fairness | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Overall quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.4) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 106 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Helpfulness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
i totally agree with the first anonymous comment on the review process of this journal. The reviews were quick and the quality was high. Although, we had two strong positive reviews a third one was rather negative. The process wasn't explained to us either. So while the reviews were helpful the editors decision and comments were rather non-satisfying.
i totally agree with the first anonymous comment on the review process of this journal. The reviews were quick and the quality was high. Although, we had two strong positive reviews a third one was rather negative. The process wasn't explained to us either. So while the reviews were helpful the editors decision and comments were rather non-satisfying.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
Review process was quick, and reviews were substantial, although one of the two reviews did not seem to be fair. The editor did not comment on the paper but merely explained the procedure (i.e. two strong, positive reviews are needed to have a paper accepted).
Review process was quick, and reviews were substantial, although one of the two reviews did not seem to be fair. The editor did not comment on the paper but merely explained the procedure (i.e. two strong, positive reviews are needed to have a paper accepted).
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion