New Media & Society.

(Sage Publications)

First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 156 days (SD = 89)
Review length 772 words (SD = 543)
Review quality 3 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Would submit again 3.2 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
Journal recommendation 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
(based on 15 reports including 29 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate n/a
Plausibility n/a

Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Length 772 words (SD = 543)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 3.1 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Helpfulness 3.1 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Fairness 3.1 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 3 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Length 191 words (SD = 148)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Helpfulness 1.9 / 5 (SD = 1)
Fairness 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Overall quality 2.1 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 77 days (SD = 67)
(based on 6 reports including 15 reviews)

Length 490 words (SD = 358)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 4.1 / 5 (SD = 0.6)
Helpfulness 4.2 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Fairness 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.6)
Consistency 4.6 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
Overall quality 4.4 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Length 142 words (SD = 157)
Decision Accept (modal)
Plausibility 4.2 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Helpfulness 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 4 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7)
  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Overall, I've been happy with all my submissions to New Media & Society so far. Two of my manuscripts were rejected but with helpful and useful reviews so that the rejection decision was understandable. One of my submissions was accepted after two rounds of substantial reviews with helpful and constructive feedback. In all the three cases, the responsible editor was fair and based the decision on the reviews and their overall tone. In addition, the review cycles are reasonably short. We waited 2-3 months on average to hear back for the initial decision and for the accepted paper the subsequent round was around 1.5 months (which was perfectly ok given the substantial revisions) and the last round of minor revisions around 2 weeks. All in all, I would recommend submitting to this journal and it's certainly one of the best in the field.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
I got one round of review with two reviewers. Reviewer 1 provides useful feedback, raises dozens of short questions that I should address in the revision. S/he recommends revision and resubmit. Reviewer 2 is a joke. My study is a survey research. S/he probably is a critical scholar because his/her review begins with "This paper takes a positivistic approach..." and s/he provides a bibliography that mainly consists of critical work. I had to remove some cases because they were statistically outliers. I wrote this in my paper. It happened that these cases were racial minorities. This reviewer says s/he does not understand why I removed them. I think the journal editor should not send a quantitative study to a reviewer who doesn't master the basic of quantitative analysis. It is very funny in a unprofessional way.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
The editorial staff is truly amazing at NM&S ... incredibly helpful, prompt, friendly, and proactive. For this particular submission process, the reviewers were helpful (one more so than the other), and even though they disagreed with our theoretical/methodological position on a few items, they were willing to accept our arguments for their logic and empirical support. Both as a reviewer and an author, I've never had a more enjoyable and productive submission process.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
I have had 2/2 journal articles accepted for publication at NMS. In both instances the reviews were thoughtful and the turnaround time was very fast (the first time it took 6 months from initial submit to final decision; the second time it was 4.5 months). So both my experiences were positive, but YMMV based on the other reviews here.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Two things stood out about this process: how long it took, and the nastiness of one of the reviewers in Round 1.

In Round 1, Reviewer 1 provided only short responses to a series of questions and recommended publishing the manuscript in its present form. It is doubtful he or she read the manuscript, though. Reviewer 2 was genuinely constructive and recommended an R&R. Reviewer 3, however, was a piece of work. The review was pompous, condescending, and not remotely helpful. On the plus side, the review was so over-the-top that it was good for a lot of laughs with colleagues. It's worth noting that the paper was not sent to that reviewer for the second round of reviews.

In the second round of reviews, both reviewers were constructive. However, the editors rejected the manuscript with boilerplate language, offering no rationale whatsoever for the decision.

All in all, not a good experience, and it is doubtful I would submit there again.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Reviewer 1's main point was that we did not examine a variable that he/she thinks is important in the context of our study. This is the worst type of feedback that someone can give. There will always be numerous variables related to the topic that cannot be addressed in a single study. If anything, our study included more variables than previous studies that were examining the same topic. The reviewer said "I would suggest that the authors become familiar with the relevant research and re-work their research designs accordingly."

Reviewer 2's main points were 1) too short for a longitudinal study and 2) measurement. Regarding timing, the gap between the two data collections was 6 months, which is not too short for a longitudinal study. Moreover, substantial changes in means in our variables of interest (which we noted in the article with statistical significance) indicate that yes indeed, our participants' perceptions during that time period. Regarding the second point, measurement, Reviewer 2's issues with the measures we used are unclear. He/she took issues with variables such as "loneliness" which was measured with the UCLA loneliness scale, which has been used in more than 4000 published articles.

The worst thing about this process was that the editor only provided a standard, generic rejection. I feel like an editor who reads a review such as that of Reviewer 1 should have known that that is an invalid review.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
First, I served a reviewer for a few submissions and none of them were closely related to my expertise. But I tried my best to review them and to offer constructive comments. (Flip the coin, what does it mean if you are an author?)

Second, as an author, I submitted two manuscripts. The first one was accepted in 2011, with a quick turnaround. Both reviewers were positive, although with some interesting points, and the paper was eventually accepted.

The second (recent) submission was reviewed by two reviewers. Submission to decision took more than half a year. Reviewer 1 was more on the favorable side, whereas reviewer 2 did not offer any comments except that my paper should be submitted elsewhere to a more specialized journal and I should cite "someone" works. She probably doesn't know these journals or the "someone" works she mentioned. It is my feelings that she probably just read the title of the manuscript.

It is really reviewers like reviewer 2 that drive authors nuts ):

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
I will not submit to this journal again until there is turnover in the editorial board. I received two reviewers who were qualitative/critical for a paper that employed quantitative methods--poor assignment in the first place.

Then, rather than reviewing the piece or offering useful criticism, both ranted about my choice of methods. I was told by one reviewer that "you can't distill women's experiences into numbers" and the other suggested that I was misapplying the theory by using experimental methods (note that the authors of the theory have only tested it quantitatively, and the most heavily cited work in this area is quantitative.) Their arguments were condescending, pedantic, and completely devoid of any useful feedback about how to improve the paper. I question whether either of them read past the abstract before writing their reviews.

The editor was equally to blame for skimming the reviews and concluding that I had selected the "wrong" approach when it was just both reviewers' bias against any quantitative methods whatsoever. It was particularly aggravating to get such closed-minded reviewers when I am in practice a mixed methods researcher who uses both quant and qual approaches--not to mention that I wasted 10 months waiting for it. Paper was subsequently published in a journal with twice the impact factor.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Having reviewed for the journal myself, I know reviewers get three or four weeks for their review. Waiting one year and one day and then getting rejected without explanation, based on one review from someone who says he knows neither the journal nor the topic, and another one who is essentially positive is more than frustrating.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5  (still under review)
NMS is widely acknowledged as a high quality journal, in terms of the papers it publishes and its reach (and thus its usefulness for one's career, if that is a concern). However, because of this, they are rather swamped with submissions and have been for some time, thus, they are also acknowledged as a journal that takes a long time for the reviewing process, which may not be the best thing if you are up for tenure next year. However, I have been very impressed with the reviews in terms of their thoughtfulness and professional tone (i.e., positive and supportive, but honest about needed changes).

Suggest Journal

Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!