Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
(Mary Ann Liebert)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 61 days (SD = 23) |
| Review length | 413 words (SD = 343) |
| Review quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Overall quality | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Would submit again | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
| Journal recommendation | 3.2 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
(based on 19 reports including 37 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | 18 days (SD = 0) |
| Plausibility | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report) |
|
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 413 words (SD = 343) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.3) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Fairness | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 170 words (SD = 143) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 1.9 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Helpfulness | 1.6 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 1.9 / 5 (SD = 1.3) |
| Overall quality | 1.7 / 5 (SD = 1.1) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 65 days (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 4 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 507 words (SD = 260) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Fairness | 4.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Consistency | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Overall quality | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Accept (modal) |
| Plausibility | n/a |
| Helpfulness | n/a |
| Fairness | n/a |
| Overall quality | n/a |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
Reviewers were relatively positive about the paper, and addressed concerns about portions of the paper that needed greater clarity. Despite largely correctable concerns from the reviewers, the editor did not believe the paper was a priority. Overall, I felt the feedback was useful in creating a stronger paper.
Reviewers were relatively positive about the paper, and addressed concerns about portions of the paper that needed greater clarity. Despite largely correctable concerns from the reviewers, the editor did not believe the paper was a priority. Overall, I felt the feedback was useful in creating a stronger paper.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
Comments were pretty hard, but largely fixable, so I can't see them having merited a rejection - which was the editors decision.
One reviewer mentioned that the paper 'omitted important literature in the area' yet neglected to mention what said literature was. When an editor lets that kind of comment pass for a review, and a rejection review at that, it's hard to have confidence in the process
Comments were pretty hard, but largely fixable, so I can't see them having merited a rejection - which was the editors decision.
One reviewer mentioned that the paper 'omitted important literature in the area' yet neglected to mention what said literature was. When an editor lets that kind of comment pass for a review, and a rejection review at that, it's hard to have confidence in the process
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
Reviews were a joke. 30-40% of comments were blatantly incorrect or off-base. I refuse to believe that the lack of a construct's name in an article title is a "major issue".
Received zero helpful tips or ideas on how to improve the paper - just that "this and that" was wrong.
Not even sure if the editor looked at the paper, but was quick enough to let me know that the paper could not be resubmitted even after pointed out the blatant mistakes in the reviews.
Reviews were a joke. 30-40% of comments were blatantly incorrect or off-base. I refuse to believe that the lack of a construct's name in an article title is a "major issue".
Received zero helpful tips or ideas on how to improve the paper - just that "this and that" was wrong.
Not even sure if the editor looked at the paper, but was quick enough to let me know that the paper could not be resubmitted even after pointed out the blatant mistakes in the reviews.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
Both reviewers' comments were favorable and positive (with some minor concerns or issues). Overall, they were professional and fair.
However, the editor rejected this manuscript saying that "Although some of the comments from our reviewers were favorable, we receive over 600 manuscript submissions per year and have limited space in each issue. Unfortunately, your manuscript is not of sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking."
Thus, the whole process is absolutely awful!
Both reviewers' comments were favorable and positive (with some minor concerns or issues). Overall, they were professional and fair.
However, the editor rejected this manuscript saying that "Although some of the comments from our reviewers were favorable, we receive over 600 manuscript submissions per year and have limited space in each issue. Unfortunately, your manuscript is not of sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking."
Thus, the whole process is absolutely awful!
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
Even though the overall quality of the reviews was very low, both reviewers suggested publication (Reviewer 1 minor revision, Reviewer 2 major revision) The issues raised in the reviews could have been easily resolved. Still, the paper was rejected because it was "not sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology".
Based on my own experience and the other reviews, I come to the conclusion that the review process at Cyberpsychology is hit and miss. If you have got two months to spare, you might give it a shot. But the editorial decision might be arbitrary and the comments not helpful for revising your paper.
Even though the overall quality of the reviews was very low, both reviewers suggested publication (Reviewer 1 minor revision, Reviewer 2 major revision) The issues raised in the reviews could have been easily resolved. Still, the paper was rejected because it was "not sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology".
Based on my own experience and the other reviews, I come to the conclusion that the review process at Cyberpsychology is hit and miss. If you have got two months to spare, you might give it a shot. But the editorial decision might be arbitrary and the comments not helpful for revising your paper.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
It took about 80 days for them to return the review--not bad. However, reviewers' comments were bad and unprofessional.
Reviewer 1's comments were only marginally related to the paper and were somewhat random. It seemed s/he just wanted to slam the paper or the subject, without giving much evidence or logical reasoning.
Reviewer 2's comments were short, and some of them were not related to the manuscript--those are the standard sentences from a research manual.
One of the reviewers said the manuscript should be much longer than 3000 (note: CPBSN has a word limit of 3000).
Overall, reviewers were just bashing; many comments were unrelated or marginally related to the manuscript.
It took about 80 days for them to return the review--not bad. However, reviewers' comments were bad and unprofessional.
Reviewer 1's comments were only marginally related to the paper and were somewhat random. It seemed s/he just wanted to slam the paper or the subject, without giving much evidence or logical reasoning.
Reviewer 2's comments were short, and some of them were not related to the manuscript--those are the standard sentences from a research manual.
One of the reviewers said the manuscript should be much longer than 3000 (note: CPBSN has a word limit of 3000).
Overall, reviewers were just bashing; many comments were unrelated or marginally related to the manuscript.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
I got reviews for this back in less than six weeks. An author's dream, right? This was probably the laziest set of reviews I have ever received, however. Pasting in the reviews above I realized that with THREE reviews there were a total of 88 words--and the shortest one (8 words) was the most helpful. I guess I shouldn't complain given that the article was accepted and revisions took 15 minutes, but at the same time it doesn't speak well for the review process at this journal, which is arbitrary at best.
I got reviews for this back in less than six weeks. An author's dream, right? This was probably the laziest set of reviews I have ever received, however. Pasting in the reviews above I realized that with THREE reviews there were a total of 88 words--and the shortest one (8 words) was the most helpful. I guess I shouldn't complain given that the article was accepted and revisions took 15 minutes, but at the same time it doesn't speak well for the review process at this journal, which is arbitrary at best.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
This journal is pretty fast concerning reviews. Both review processes were helpful. Journal has accepts only short papers submissions (<3000) - depends on your writing style if you like this or not.
This journal is pretty fast concerning reviews. Both review processes were helpful. Journal has accepts only short papers submissions (<3000) - depends on your writing style if you like this or not.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
Both reviewers suggested minor revision, but we guess the journal has only revise and resubmit as an option. The editor did not review the papers at all. The second submission was successfull, our paper is now published. Especially the time for the first review round was pretty short, what was a nice surprise compared to other journals. In addition, we love to write short papers, this journal only accepts submissions < 3000 words, so we liked it.
Both reviewers suggested minor revision, but we guess the journal has only revise and resubmit as an option. The editor did not review the papers at all. The second submission was successfull, our paper is now published. Especially the time for the first review round was pretty short, what was a nice surprise compared to other journals. In addition, we love to write short papers, this journal only accepts submissions < 3000 words, so we liked it.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The paper was basically rejected based on that the paper is featured in SSRN. Rejecting paper on these ground to me seems like a very bad academic practice. The contents of the second review basically only consisted of the remark that its in SSRN and therefore it must be rejected.
The first review did comment on the contents of the paper which as to some degree was useful although my impression still was that the reviewer was not knowledgeable on the issues he/she critiqued. I don't know what reviewer 1 recommended to be the decision on the paper but I would imagine it would have lead to either minor or major revisions. However, the editorial decision seemed to be solely based upon the paper being in SSRN and therefore rejected.
The paper was basically rejected based on that the paper is featured in SSRN. Rejecting paper on these ground to me seems like a very bad academic practice. The contents of the second review basically only consisted of the remark that its in SSRN and therefore it must be rejected.
The first review did comment on the contents of the paper which as to some degree was useful although my impression still was that the reviewer was not knowledgeable on the issues he/she critiqued. I don't know what reviewer 1 recommended to be the decision on the paper but I would imagine it would have lead to either minor or major revisions. However, the editorial decision seemed to be solely based upon the paper being in SSRN and therefore rejected.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
A revision was actually requested after round 1, but it was requested with language that suggested favorable prospects and accepted with no reviewer feedback in the second round of reviews, so we have categorized this as an "accept with minor changes" decision in the system.
There was only one review, and it was brief but helpful, but this may have been appropriate as the editors recommended paring the article-length submission down to a "rapid communication" research report. It may be that the review process is slightly expedited in such instances. In general, we found the process quick and favorable for a brief and data-driven report such as ours, though an argument could be made that it was not of adequate rigor. Experiences and opinions about this journal's review process seem to be mixed; in our experience, it seems to vary but may involve some deliberate variety in the process depending on whether the editors see a study as an article-length contribution or a useful brief report. Given that many journals handle brief reports differently than regular articles, we did not find the "lighter" review process problematic here, but we may have been biased by the favorable outcome.
A revision was actually requested after round 1, but it was requested with language that suggested favorable prospects and accepted with no reviewer feedback in the second round of reviews, so we have categorized this as an "accept with minor changes" decision in the system.
There was only one review, and it was brief but helpful, but this may have been appropriate as the editors recommended paring the article-length submission down to a "rapid communication" research report. It may be that the review process is slightly expedited in such instances. In general, we found the process quick and favorable for a brief and data-driven report such as ours, though an argument could be made that it was not of adequate rigor. Experiences and opinions about this journal's review process seem to be mixed; in our experience, it seems to vary but may involve some deliberate variety in the process depending on whether the editors see a study as an article-length contribution or a useful brief report. Given that many journals handle brief reports differently than regular articles, we did not find the "lighter" review process problematic here, but we may have been biased by the favorable outcome.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
While we were disappointed with the outcome of the review process, the reviewers were fair and thorough in articulating criticisms of a design that was not without flaws. We found the reviewers concise at describing key issues, which we would absolutely acknowledge as legitimate concerns and only dispute in terms of how much of a threat they posed to the study's validity. While we have heard some criticize the rigor of this journal's review process, and we suspect that may vary by topic, etc., in our experience the process was sound and the reviewers left us feeling that they were justified about their decision to reject the manuscript.
In our experience, the editor provides little additional feedback and does not use a lot of discretion in making decisions beyond reviewer recommendations, but we found that appropriate in this case given the quality of the reviews.
While we were disappointed with the outcome of the review process, the reviewers were fair and thorough in articulating criticisms of a design that was not without flaws. We found the reviewers concise at describing key issues, which we would absolutely acknowledge as legitimate concerns and only dispute in terms of how much of a threat they posed to the study's validity. While we have heard some criticize the rigor of this journal's review process, and we suspect that may vary by topic, etc., in our experience the process was sound and the reviewers left us feeling that they were justified about their decision to reject the manuscript.
In our experience, the editor provides little additional feedback and does not use a lot of discretion in making decisions beyond reviewer recommendations, but we found that appropriate in this case given the quality of the reviews.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
CyberPsych can be a crapshoot with reviewers, but this one was a good experience. Two reviewers. Reviewer 1 didn't seem to know a lot about the area, but still gave legit and helpful feedback in round 1 to improve the readability of the paper. Did not comment in round 2. Reviewer 2 knew their stuff and gave helpful, domain-specific feedback in both rounds. The editor did not really comment either time.
It's worth noting that the editor's role in CyberPsych is not like other journals. The actual editor is hands off with the review process; rather, managing editors who are not necessarily in the field (i.e., nonacademics) assess the overall reviewers' sentiments and make a decision based on that. Just thought that note might offer some explanation for others' frustrations with that aspect of the process.
CyberPsych can be a crapshoot with reviewers, but this one was a good experience. Two reviewers. Reviewer 1 didn't seem to know a lot about the area, but still gave legit and helpful feedback in round 1 to improve the readability of the paper. Did not comment in round 2. Reviewer 2 knew their stuff and gave helpful, domain-specific feedback in both rounds. The editor did not really comment either time.
It's worth noting that the editor's role in CyberPsych is not like other journals. The actual editor is hands off with the review process; rather, managing editors who are not necessarily in the field (i.e., nonacademics) assess the overall reviewers' sentiments and make a decision based on that. Just thought that note might offer some explanation for others' frustrations with that aspect of the process.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
Considering that our submission was a "rapid communication", the review process took quite long. The editorial decision was very difficult to understand since the concerns of both reviewers could have been easily addressed in a revision. The only reason the editor gave for the decision was that the "manuscript is not of sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking".
Considering that our submission was a "rapid communication", the review process took quite long. The editorial decision was very difficult to understand since the concerns of both reviewers could have been easily addressed in a revision. The only reason the editor gave for the decision was that the "manuscript is not of sufficiently high priority for publication in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking".
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
Two anonymous reviewers gave feedback - one gave recommendations for refining our arguments and specifically the explication of our variables that were remarkably useful (the longer review) and the other more or less recommended the paper be published without reservation. Yet the editor rejected the paper and specifically mentioned that it was not "based on external reviewer comments" but on internal judgments of the editorial board. This was quite frustrating because this suggests that editors/editorial board were already of the mindset to 'desk reject' the article from the onset. Thus, our paper was sent to reviewers seemingly with little chance of publication in the first place (a lack of editorial fit) which seems to be unfair both to our research (having the paper "tied up" for six months) as well as the two reviewers who were asked to evaluate the paper. We suggest that the journal perhaps clarify their editorial focus and/or be more clear about desk rejections.
Two anonymous reviewers gave feedback - one gave recommendations for refining our arguments and specifically the explication of our variables that were remarkably useful (the longer review) and the other more or less recommended the paper be published without reservation. Yet the editor rejected the paper and specifically mentioned that it was not "based on external reviewer comments" but on internal judgments of the editorial board. This was quite frustrating because this suggests that editors/editorial board were already of the mindset to 'desk reject' the article from the onset. Thus, our paper was sent to reviewers seemingly with little chance of publication in the first place (a lack of editorial fit) which seems to be unfair both to our research (having the paper "tied up" for six months) as well as the two reviewers who were asked to evaluate the paper. We suggest that the journal perhaps clarify their editorial focus and/or be more clear about desk rejections.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
Article was rejected despite minor criticisms (I could address all of the criticisms, and revise accordingly, within one day of receiving the review). However, when I contacted the editor to resubmit, claiming that my article was unfairly rejected, I was told that rejected publications are not further considered.
Article was rejected despite minor criticisms (I could address all of the criticisms, and revise accordingly, within one day of receiving the review). However, when I contacted the editor to resubmit, claiming that my article was unfairly rejected, I was told that rejected publications are not further considered.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
There were two reviews for our submission. One was rather brief, but only had some minor issues with the manuscript and wholeheartedly recommended it for publication. The other was lengthy and informative, with some interesting thoughts for improvement, in particular of our discussion section. Although this reviewer does not explicitly name any recommendation in the comments, my guess would be that it was either Revise & Resubmit or Reject. In any way, the two reviews were quite contradictive, and I would have liked the editor of CPB to request a third one before making the editorial decision. Sadly, this did not happen, nor did the editor pointed out any issues in particular that lead to the rejection of our manuscript.
There were two reviews for our submission. One was rather brief, but only had some minor issues with the manuscript and wholeheartedly recommended it for publication. The other was lengthy and informative, with some interesting thoughts for improvement, in particular of our discussion section. Although this reviewer does not explicitly name any recommendation in the comments, my guess would be that it was either Revise & Resubmit or Reject. In any way, the two reviews were quite contradictive, and I would have liked the editor of CPB to request a third one before making the editorial decision. Sadly, this did not happen, nor did the editor pointed out any issues in particular that lead to the rejection of our manuscript.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion