Journal of Health Communication.
(Routledge)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 50 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | n/a |
| Review quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 1 review) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | n/a |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | n/a |
| Helpfulness | n/a |
| Fairness | n/a |
| Overall quality | n/a |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
I submitted two manuscripts to this journal, back in 2011. Both got rejected.
The turnaround time was fast, about 50 days. It seems both times, there was just one reviewer. Overall, the reviewers just provided 3-4 short paragraphs.
The first time: The reviewer simply said the manuscript was not significant enough (which was eventually published in a journal with higher impact factor). Other than that point, the reviewer simply picked and disagree with a couple of sentences and made a big deal out of those sentences. These were indeed fine, but even if they were not, they could be deleted or modified easily.
The second time: there were just 4 short paragraphs. The review discussed some points that were only marginally related to the manuscript and did not provide important citations or specifics to backup his/her comments/statements.
Disappointing.
I submitted two manuscripts to this journal, back in 2011. Both got rejected.
The turnaround time was fast, about 50 days. It seems both times, there was just one reviewer. Overall, the reviewers just provided 3-4 short paragraphs.
The first time: The reviewer simply said the manuscript was not significant enough (which was eventually published in a journal with higher impact factor). Other than that point, the reviewer simply picked and disagree with a couple of sentences and made a big deal out of those sentences. These were indeed fine, but even if they were not, they could be deleted or modified easily.
The second time: there were just 4 short paragraphs. The review discussed some points that were only marginally related to the manuscript and did not provide important citations or specifics to backup his/her comments/statements.
Disappointing.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion