Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
(Wiley-Blackwell)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 142 days (SD = 57) |
| Review length | 977 words (SD = 546) |
| Review quality | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1.3) |
| Overall quality | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.7) |
| Would submit again | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Journal recommendation | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
(based on 3 reports including 7 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | 49 days (SD = 18) |
| Plausibility | 3 / 5 (SD = 2) |
(based on 2 reports) |
|
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 977 words (SD = 546) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Helpfulness | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Fairness | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Overall quality | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1.3) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 178 words (SD = 101) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Helpfulness | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Fairness | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 93 days (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 1 review) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 956 words (SD = 0) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Consistency | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
The review process at JCMC was fair and straightforward for our paper. Also, the review time was ok (4 months) given the length and depth of the reviews. We received 4 detailed reviews in total - with around 3500 words adding all of the reviews up - plus an associate editor comment summarizing the reviews. The editor then made his decision to reject the paper based on the associate editor recommendation. The fact that 3 out of the 4 reviews were positive and encouraging, with only the 4th being very critical and negative, and the paper was still rejected in the first round shows that JCMC is an extremely competitive journal. It seems like they reject very quickly, based on small criticisms and problems, which is of course ok in light of the status of the journal. Based on our experience, I can recommend submitting to this journal... Just make sure your manuscript is flawless ;)
The review process at JCMC was fair and straightforward for our paper. Also, the review time was ok (4 months) given the length and depth of the reviews. We received 4 detailed reviews in total - with around 3500 words adding all of the reviews up - plus an associate editor comment summarizing the reviews. The editor then made his decision to reject the paper based on the associate editor recommendation. The fact that 3 out of the 4 reviews were positive and encouraging, with only the 4th being very critical and negative, and the paper was still rejected in the first round shows that JCMC is an extremely competitive journal. It seems like they reject very quickly, based on small criticisms and problems, which is of course ok in light of the status of the journal. Based on our experience, I can recommend submitting to this journal... Just make sure your manuscript is flawless ;)
· Plausibility: 5 / 5 (desk reject)
New editor's efforts for quicker turnaround time is a solid improvement. Though a desk reject, the editor had an associate editor review my manuscript before it was sent to reviewers. The brief commentary from the associate editor was actually very helpful and has strengthened the manuscript considerably. I plan to submit to this journal again, especially given the quick turnaround, expert eyes on it, and editor's personal touch to the process.
New editor's efforts for quicker turnaround time is a solid improvement. Though a desk reject, the editor had an associate editor review my manuscript before it was sent to reviewers. The brief commentary from the associate editor was actually very helpful and has strengthened the manuscript considerably. I plan to submit to this journal again, especially given the quick turnaround, expert eyes on it, and editor's personal touch to the process.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
I had positive experiences with this journal previously, but not this time. I only could rate the average review, but they differed in quality. The first round was okay - reasonably fair and helpful reviews, R&R, but a tough one. However, the editorital assistant has sent me one review twice and the name of the action editor was also not correct.
In the second round it was rejected. One review was still very helpful, but one reviewer had obviously only read my letter but reviewed the first version of the review again and another one rejected it because I did not follow one of his/her many points (just a renaming issue). No comment at all from the editor. The new policy is to have four reviews, but this really needs an action editor who gives clear advice on which points are important to address. It had taken me several days to go through the reviews from the first round carefully, and my coverletter for the first revision was longer than the paper. My impression is that neither reviewers nor the action editor are motivated to process this carefully - tone of the second round was quite negative for three of the four reviews.
I had positive experiences with this journal previously, but not this time. I only could rate the average review, but they differed in quality. The first round was okay - reasonably fair and helpful reviews, R&R, but a tough one. However, the editorital assistant has sent me one review twice and the name of the action editor was also not correct.
In the second round it was rejected. One review was still very helpful, but one reviewer had obviously only read my letter but reviewed the first version of the review again and another one rejected it because I did not follow one of his/her many points (just a renaming issue). No comment at all from the editor. The new policy is to have four reviews, but this really needs an action editor who gives clear advice on which points are important to address. It had taken me several days to go through the reviews from the first round carefully, and my coverletter for the first revision was longer than the paper. My impression is that neither reviewers nor the action editor are motivated to process this carefully - tone of the second round was quite negative for three of the four reviews.
· Plausibility: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
I don't know an academic in CMC who has not had a terrible experience with this journal in the past couple of years.
For this particular paper, it took over two months to get a desk reject based on the paper's length. At the time there were zero indications on the website or in the manuscript submission site to indicate the paper was too long for submission. (It is worth noting JCMC used to be entirely online, so page length was never an issue before.) Simply unacceptable to sit on a paper for over two months just for a desk reject based on paper length.
I don't know an academic in CMC who has not had a terrible experience with this journal in the past couple of years.
For this particular paper, it took over two months to get a desk reject based on the paper's length. At the time there were zero indications on the website or in the manuscript submission site to indicate the paper was too long for submission. (It is worth noting JCMC used to be entirely online, so page length was never an issue before.) Simply unacceptable to sit on a paper for over two months just for a desk reject based on paper length.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The first review round took more than six months before our article was rejected. While the first review was really helpful, the second one was completely out of question. However, the journal's editor did not make any individual comments on how he/she weighted the reviews before making his/her decision.
The first review round took more than six months before our article was rejected. While the first review was really helpful, the second one was completely out of question. However, the journal's editor did not make any individual comments on how he/she weighted the reviews before making his/her decision.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion