Journal of Sex Research.
(Routledge)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 32 days (SD = 21) |
| Review length | 565 words (SD = 196) |
| Review quality | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Would submit again | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 2 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 565 words (SD = 196) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3 / 5 (SD = 2) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 2) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 2) |
| Overall quality | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 939 words (SD = 732) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The reviews were mediocre at best. My paper made explicit an effort to avoid heterocentric language, and the reviewer responded with this: "Finally, not sure why a politically correct apology/disclaimer is needed for studying “heterosexual” behaviors. Has obsession with not offending anyone gotten so out of control that a footnote is needed to explain why someone is studying behavior that involves a HUGE proportion of the population?"
I found this review quite offensive and when I brought this to the attention of the editor-in-chief, the response was dismissive claiming that she was sorry I found it insulting. For the sake of bias, I will not submit here again.
The reviews were mediocre at best. My paper made explicit an effort to avoid heterocentric language, and the reviewer responded with this: "Finally, not sure why a politically correct apology/disclaimer is needed for studying “heterosexual” behaviors. Has obsession with not offending anyone gotten so out of control that a footnote is needed to explain why someone is studying behavior that involves a HUGE proportion of the population?"
I found this review quite offensive and when I brought this to the attention of the editor-in-chief, the response was dismissive claiming that she was sorry I found it insulting. For the sake of bias, I will not submit here again.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
In spite of two very positive reviews (explicitly recommending accept), the editor-in-chief listed a series of (dubious) grammatical and stylistic changes to the manuscript and claimed it was one of the worst papers he had ever read. the tone of the editor was just unnecessary and unprofessional. This journal is the bottom of the barrel for social psych anyway, and I won't submit there again.
In spite of two very positive reviews (explicitly recommending accept), the editor-in-chief listed a series of (dubious) grammatical and stylistic changes to the manuscript and claimed it was one of the worst papers he had ever read. the tone of the editor was just unnecessary and unprofessional. This journal is the bottom of the barrel for social psych anyway, and I won't submit there again.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion