Behavior Research Methods.
(Springer)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 41 days (SD = 2) |
| Review length | 794 words (SD = 631) |
| Review quality | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Would submit again | 3 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Journal recommendation | 2.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
(based on 2 reports including 5 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | 69 days (SD = 10) |
| Plausibility | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports) |
|
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 794 words (SD = 631) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Helpfulness | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Fairness | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Overall quality | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 378 words (SD = 160) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 41 days (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 3 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 848 words (SD = 969) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Consistency | 4 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 915 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Plausibility: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
Desk rejected after more than two months. Not submitting ever again.
Desk rejected after more than two months. Not submitting ever again.
· Plausibility: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
Desk reject after almost 2 months with a dubious reason. They argued that the topic is too specific. Interestingly, this was obvious after reading the title and abstract, i.e., the desk reject decision could have been done after submission by just checking title and abstract.
Desk reject after almost 2 months with a dubious reason. They argued that the topic is too specific. Interestingly, this was obvious after reading the title and abstract, i.e., the desk reject decision could have been done after submission by just checking title and abstract.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 3 / 5
As the topic of our manuscript was rather unconventional, we aimed high when we submitted it to Behavior Research Methods. Thus, the rejection by the editor was not really surprising to us. The main issue seemed to be that the manuscript was not "substantial" enough. In a journal as competitive as BRM, this is a fair reason, and we are not "sour" about it. In addition the comments in the editorial letter, the editor also took the time to make some comments in the document itself, which is a nice "extra". The reviews were brief, with one being helpful in how we could revise the document for another journal, the other being rather vague, reading in essence "there's nothing bad about it, but it's not good enough". All in all, we would have wished for more helpful reviews, but the decision made by the editor was plausible.
As the topic of our manuscript was rather unconventional, we aimed high when we submitted it to Behavior Research Methods. Thus, the rejection by the editor was not really surprising to us. The main issue seemed to be that the manuscript was not "substantial" enough. In a journal as competitive as BRM, this is a fair reason, and we are not "sour" about it. In addition the comments in the editorial letter, the editor also took the time to make some comments in the document itself, which is a nice "extra". The reviews were brief, with one being helpful in how we could revise the document for another journal, the other being rather vague, reading in essence "there's nothing bad about it, but it's not good enough". All in all, we would have wished for more helpful reviews, but the decision made by the editor was plausible.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
At first, we were quite pleased with the review process. In the first round, we received 3 reviews in total, of which 2 were rather positive, and one was rather negative. The editor accepted the manuscript provided we would address the issues mentioned in the reviews. All three reviewers had some suggestions how the manuscript could be improved, and we gladly adressed them because we really felt that they were in fact increasing its quality. It was quite obvious that one reviewer was trying to prevent this manuscript from getting published, but even in this criticism there were many aspects that we thought seriously improved the manuscript. Thus, we saw merit even in the harshest and "unfairest" comments.
It was to our great surprise to see the manuscript rejected in the second round. The two reviewers that were positive about the manuscript had nothing more to add, stated that all issues had been properly addressed, and that the manuscript was ready for publication. Even the negative reviewer explicitly admitted that we dealt with all points that were criticized in round 1. However, that did not stop this reviewer from writing up another lengthy text with criticism so fundamental that we have a hard time understanding that they were not brought up in round 1. Other points were deliberately misunderstood, or even worse simply non-factual. It was those criticisms in particular that we were surprisd to be brought up in a method-dedicated journal. Sadly, the attempt of this reviewer to prevent the publication succeeded and convinced the editor to reject it.
At first, we were quite pleased with the review process. In the first round, we received 3 reviews in total, of which 2 were rather positive, and one was rather negative. The editor accepted the manuscript provided we would address the issues mentioned in the reviews. All three reviewers had some suggestions how the manuscript could be improved, and we gladly adressed them because we really felt that they were in fact increasing its quality. It was quite obvious that one reviewer was trying to prevent this manuscript from getting published, but even in this criticism there were many aspects that we thought seriously improved the manuscript. Thus, we saw merit even in the harshest and "unfairest" comments.
It was to our great surprise to see the manuscript rejected in the second round. The two reviewers that were positive about the manuscript had nothing more to add, stated that all issues had been properly addressed, and that the manuscript was ready for publication. Even the negative reviewer explicitly admitted that we dealt with all points that were criticized in round 1. However, that did not stop this reviewer from writing up another lengthy text with criticism so fundamental that we have a hard time understanding that they were not brought up in round 1. Other points were deliberately misunderstood, or even worse simply non-factual. It was those criticisms in particular that we were surprisd to be brought up in a method-dedicated journal. Sadly, the attempt of this reviewer to prevent the publication succeeded and convinced the editor to reject it.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion