Journalism & Mass Communication Educator.

(Sage)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate	146 days (SD = 0)
Review length	130 words (SD = 15)
Review quality	1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Overall quality	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Would submit again	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Journal recommendation	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
(based on 2 reports including 3 reviews)
Desk rejects.
Turnaround rate	n/a
Plausibility	n/a

Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)

Reviewers
Length	130 words (SD = 15)
Overall tone	Positive (modal)
Knowledge	2.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9)
Helpfulness	2 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Fairness	2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Overall quality	1.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9)

Editors
Length	107 words (SD = 0)
Decision	Revise&Resubmit (modal)
Plausibility	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness	1.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Fairness	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality	1 / 5 (SD = 0)

Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)

Turnaround rate	n/a
(based on 1 report including 1 review)

Reviewers
Length	n/a
Overall tone	Negative (modal)
Knowledge	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Helpfulness	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Consistency	1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality	1 / 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: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
After addressing all of the reviewers' concerns, the editor's decision was "reject" based on fatal flaws in methodology. If the methodology was so badly flawed, do you THINK that you could have mentioned that with the initial review and just given me a desk rejection? Never submitting here again.

Suggest Journal