Journal of Media Psychology.
(Hogrefe)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 76 days (SD = 15) |
| Review length | 1136 words (SD = 332) |
| Review quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Overall quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Would submit again | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Journal recommendation | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
(based on 3 reports including 6 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 1136 words (SD = 332) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3 / 5 (SD = 0.6) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Fairness | 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Overall quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 799 words (SD = 316) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 3 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
This was a submission for a special issue with a two-round review system. First, abstracts had to be submitted and then a selection of submissions was invited to provide a full paper. We managed to survive the abstract submission stage but not the full paper submission reviews. While the review process was fair, very detailed and reasonably short (around 2 months from the submission of the full paper to reviews and editorial decision), the feedback could have been more constructive and encouraging in tone instead of criticizing and demoralizing. This was especially true for one reviewer who only mentioned negative aspects and seemed to be very eager to pick the study apart in every regard. The second reviewer was much more constructive and fairer. S/he also saw some of the merits of the analysis (and probably suggested a R&R) but the associate/guest editor - who made the final decision - followed the route of the first, critical reviewer and rejected the paper - being quite negative in tone as well. In hindsight, the expectations could have been communicated clearer after the selection of the abstracts for the next round. This would have helped to tackle some of the problems we were confronted with in the reviews.
This was a submission for a special issue with a two-round review system. First, abstracts had to be submitted and then a selection of submissions was invited to provide a full paper. We managed to survive the abstract submission stage but not the full paper submission reviews. While the review process was fair, very detailed and reasonably short (around 2 months from the submission of the full paper to reviews and editorial decision), the feedback could have been more constructive and encouraging in tone instead of criticizing and demoralizing. This was especially true for one reviewer who only mentioned negative aspects and seemed to be very eager to pick the study apart in every regard. The second reviewer was much more constructive and fairer. S/he also saw some of the merits of the analysis (and probably suggested a R&R) but the associate/guest editor - who made the final decision - followed the route of the first, critical reviewer and rejected the paper - being quite negative in tone as well. In hindsight, the expectations could have been communicated clearer after the selection of the abstracts for the next round. This would have helped to tackle some of the problems we were confronted with in the reviews.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
They took an enormous amount of time to reach a decision. Reviewers had finished in Mid October and did not receive a decision until early December.
Some of the comments were helpful, but others were more aimed at destroying any idea of the paper which is unfortunate. Additionally, the reviewers argued against the position of the paper suggesting some bias on their end and also low insight into their position.
They took an enormous amount of time to reach a decision. Reviewers had finished in Mid October and did not receive a decision until early December.
Some of the comments were helpful, but others were more aimed at destroying any idea of the paper which is unfortunate. Additionally, the reviewers argued against the position of the paper suggesting some bias on their end and also low insight into their position.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
It seemed as if both of the reviewers were rather unfamiliar with the statistical methods we used in this paper.
It seemed as if both of the reviewers were rather unfamiliar with the statistical methods we used in this paper.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion