Computers in Human Behavior.


First round of reviews.

Turnaround rate 133 days (SD = 96)
Review length 362 words (SD = 295)
Review quality 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Overall quality 2.6 / 5 (SD = 1.3)
Would submit again 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Journal recommendation 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
(based on 21 reports including 31 reviews)

Desk rejects.

Turnaround rate 100 days (SD = 112)
Plausibility 1.4 / 5 (SD = 0.7)
(based on 7 reports)

Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Length 362 words (SD = 295)
Overall tone Positive (modal)
Knowledge 2.8 / 5 (SD = 1.4)
Helpfulness 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Overall quality 2.9 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Length 148 words (SD = 194)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Helpfulness 2.4 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Fairness 3.1 / 5 (SD = 1.6)
Overall quality 2.6 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
Turnaround rate 96 days (SD = 78)
(based on 4 reports including 5 reviews)

Length 97 words (SD = 96)
Overall tone Negative (modal)
Knowledge 1.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Helpfulness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 1.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5)
Consistency 3 / 5 (SD = 2)
Overall quality 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Length 189 words (SD = 56)
Decision Reject (modal)
Plausibility 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2)
Helpfulness 1 / 5 (SD = 0)
Fairness 2 / 5 (SD = 0)
Overall quality 2.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5)
  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Editor's decision and reviews came in a mere 6 weeks after submission, which was a pleasant surprise, considering the very mixed experiences people seem to be having with this journal. Reviews were rather short and not very in-depth. Tone was friendly, though, and there were a few helpful suggestions.

One day after the final decision by the editor I was able to check the proof in their system, the preprint-version manuscript was already available online. Another 2 or 3 days later, the final version of the manuscript was online and fully citable. I have to say, I'm very impressed by the efficiency of their publishing process, this far exceeded my expectations.

Will definitely consider publishing in CHB again.

  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
After 19 days the paper was desk-rejected by the editor. I got a mail with a single paragraph just saying: " [the paper] does not fit within the Aims and Scopes of the journal". This was very surprising to me because I still believe that it does fit.

  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
After a week I received the decision "desk reject" in a simple one-liner stating "... based on scope and topic coverage ...".

I was really confused since my manuscript was definitely in the journal's scope and similar topics have been and still are covered. After two weeks of several queries we got a clarification that the decision actually meant that although the scope was met they had too many submissions in the subject area... So, I hit a "trending" topic and got rejected.

But instead of giving the opportunity to resubmit at another point in time, I was prohibited to submit this manuscript again to CHB.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Took 5 months to reject my manuscript on the basis of one review with several half-finished sentences that hardly address any actual content in the manuscript.

  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
The editor told us that the journal tends to publish only original materials, and favors new ideas or discoveries over replication studies. We were told that our replication study did not provide new insights, although we demonstrated that the effect claimed in the original publication was replicable, but not generalizable.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
Like others, the editorial decision was based off the feedback from just one reviewer. Given my research is on a highly contentious topic - video games and violence - I have grave concerns about relying on just one reviewer to make a decision.

The problem of getting fair, unbiased reviews on the topic of video games and violence goes well beyond this particular journal. The comments I received from the one reviewer at this journal echo those I've received from other reviewers at other journals: (a) we need to cite their paradigm more (because their POV has to be "acknowledged," which I guess can only be accomplished if scholars are forced to do so by anonymous reviewers who hold power over whether their research gets published), and, (b) the inclusion of many false statements about what prior research does and doesn't say.

Disclosure: my reaction to this reflects my own biases, to be sure. Which is why we need more than one reviewer! And we need editors who know the research, know when reviewers are spouting nonsense.

  ·  Plausibility: 2 / 5  (desk reject)
I took a whole 9 months to receive news that I got a desk reject.
In between, I have sent 2 emails to query on the process. I received standard replies from the publisher that my query has been sent to the editor. Never receive any replies.

The rejection reason was pathetic - saying it's a misfit for the journal. Did my dues and checked out their published works before I choose this journal. So I am quite baffled with their responses. I cannot be moved to actually ask for anything else. I just want to withdraw and send this off to another journal.

Sadly, I guess I will stay away from this journal for the time being.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
Very fair and positive review process. After a month, we received two positive and encouraging reviews and an accept with minor revisions. We revised the manuscript accordingly and it was accepted and published quickly afterwards. Altogether, it took around 3 months from submission to publication and the experience was satisfying.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Very strange review process. Received a positive message from the editor for a revise and resubmit but only one review. The review was neutral in tone and thorough, but provided several citations as suggested additions to our paper. However, some of the studies the reviewer cited were of poor quality and only tangentially relevant to the content of the paper (many of them being of different disciplines). The reviewer questioned the validity of our analyses, judging our sample size to be "too small." This was certainly not the case, as our analyses included nearly 700 participants. The reviewer also seemed to gloss over a main point of our lit review (which very clearly supported the notion that what we were studying was still prevalent and dominant in society), arguing that our work was limited in scope. We also noticed the review quoted very specific language that we included in our cover letter to the editor, indicating that our review may not have actually been blind as we had requested. That said, we incorporated the reviewer's suggestions into our work and resubmitted.

Within only a few hours of resubmission, we received a decision letter of rejection. The reviewer did not address any of the changes we had made, only saying that we "did not revise to the satisfaction of the reviewer comments." The comments closed by saying we did not clearly state a hypothesis and that our methods were poorly devised. These issues were not raised at all during the initial review, so these comments naturally came as a surprise.

All in all, this experience has led me to question the legitimacy of this journal, as some of the other reviews on this site suggest that they are only requiring one reviewer for peer-review. This is not appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal and it would seem there are some problems going on behind the scenes.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Waited 8.5 months. Only one reviewer looked at my article. Rejected based on me apparently "misapplying" a theory that I never actually cited and that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was studying.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
It appears that the editor made his decision based on the feedback of one reviewer. I won't be submitting again to a journal that does not get more than one review. The editor made no comments of his own and merely went along with the single review.

The review made sweeping claims without any evidence and used those claims as the basis for a rejection rec.

  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
This used to be a really nice journal to submit to. Good turnaround, good quality reviews, and good post-acceptance management. Unfortunately, my more recent experiences are not as positive.
My latest paper was rejected around 6 months after submission, and was a desk reject as they were unable to get reviews, and the paper apparently did not fit with the aims or scope of the journal (which they clearly did, based on other material that has been published there).
I think that the editorial team and reviewers are simply too busy. I have reviewed for them many times, and they constantly send manuscripts that are simply not up to publishable standard due to poor operationalization of variables or poor English expression. They need a more effective desk reject system that gets these manuscripts out of the review process early on, so that they stop clogging up the review process (or in fact stopping the review process) for other authors.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
The associate editor of this journal rejected my manuscript three months after submission without providing any reviewer comment. She wrote: “The comments on your manuscript have now been received from all the reviewers. The reviewers are advising against publication of your work. On the basis of their remarks, I have made the decision to reject your manuscript for publication in the journal.” When I asked to see the comments, she said that she sent me everything. After I emailed the main editor, she emailed me again that she sent me all she had in the files. So I called the customer support of Elsevier and was told that she asked 15 persons to review this paper. One refused to review it. One agreed but never completed the review. The other 13 never responded to her invitation. This is a journal that publishes many articles related to the theme of my manuscript over the years. When I emailed her and the main editor about my concerns, she replied that the manuscript had been appropriately reviewed and rejected. A day later, she sent me a personal review of my paper and used it as the reason to reject it. Interestingly, the critique suggested that she neither read the manuscript carefully or the journal's guidelines carefully. For example, my study was a simple two-group design with 20 persons in each group. She did not get that count right, let alone the characteristics of my participants, whose info was reported clearly in many places in the manuscript. What's more, she repeatedly mentioned that since our manuscript did not follow APA and that was the basis for rejection. However, per the journal’s guideline to the authors (, under the Formatting Guidelines, “(t)here are no strict requirements on reference formatting at submission. References can be in any style or format as long as the style is consistent.” While the experience of submitting to this journal was a waste of more than 3 months of our time, my co-authors and I would like report the experience dealing with this journal and we look forward to having impartial, blind reviews from multiple experts in the future.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
After just 17 days, we received a decision letter stating that: 1) the reviews had been received and were negative; 2) the manuscript was rejected; and 3) the reviews were appended below the main body of the email. NO REVIEWS WERE APPENDED.

We immediately contacted the Associate Editor to request the reviews be forwarded. No response. Contacted her again 4 days later to explain the situation in more detail and again request the reviews. No response. After two weeks contacted the Editor-in-Chief asking for help obtaining the peer reviews. He responded that he would contact the “IT staff;” never heard from them. Emailed EIC again 10 days later to note that we still had not received the peer reviews. No response. That was 3 weeks ago. We gave up. Resubmitted elsewhere.

Our correspondence each time made clear that we were not objecting to the reject decision—just merely wanted to see our peer reviews or know why a desk rejection had occurred.

The lack of an explanation or response was bizarre and unprofessional. This is not how peer review is supposed to work.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
Our paper was accepted with minor revisions (only formal stuff) but we never received any serious reviews. The reviews we got seemed to be written by the type setting crew. There was no comment on any content (!) but only on formal mistakes such as highlights are missing.

The whole process lasted a long period - we tried to reach the editor, first email was answered, others were not. We were informed that the second reviewer was late - what of course can happen but the whole procedure seemed pretty strange. This doesn't give you the happy-accept feeling at all.
In total we had different experience with this journal, quality of reviews as well as time the process takes is like a lottery - your decission if you are willing to play it.

  ·  Plausibility: 3 / 5  (desk reject)
In the past I've had reasonable luck with high-quality reviews from this journal (and reviewer network). My more recent submission was flat-out rejected by the editor, documenting a "lack of fit" with the scope of the journal - slightly understandable given that the study was interdisciplinary. This surprisingly limited feedback was received more than 7 months after submission and was paired with a rather insulting editorial letter. Unfortunately, I will no longer recommend this journal to colleagues.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
The article type was a systematic review.
The decision was reject.
Both reviewers seemed to be knowledgeable on the method.
However, one of them obviously did not read my manuscript.
While I stated even on the title that my research was focused on a specific set of factors and the reasons behind, he/she claimed that other factors were important as well and my search neglected them.
The other reviewer gave sharp and insightful comments anyways, facilitating my further revision and future submission to another journal.
Duration was reasonable, i.e. 81 days.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
The review was short but definitely helped improve the manuscript. The whole process was quick which is a nice change of pace from other journals.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
The long wait time for a slim review was regrettable but the final product was timely and resulted in an acceptance. Editorial decision was to accept within 48hrs of receiving revisions. Proofs and online article turnaround time was exceptionally quick (less than 2wks). I plan to submit here again and would (have) suggested to colleagues to do so as well.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
This journal took 6 months to provide a rejection and two reviews from individuals who were clearly not qualified to critique the analysis method used (mediation analysis). The general feedback was also not of high quality. For example, one reviewer insisted that "sex" be changed to "gender" because it "sounds more academic" (we assessed participant sex, not gender). The other thought that research on presence was "over."

Overall, it was a long, frustrating process that didn't even provide helpful feedback. Not recommended.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 1 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 1 / 5
Poor reviewers, even for comp sci journals.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 4 / 5
Fast reply from the reviewers with constructive and relevant feedback. Received minor revisions, did them and the article was accepted for publication expediently. The editor obviously took the time to read the reviews and comment on them in relevant and useful ways. All in all, a very good review process.
Ran into some trouble from Elsevier though, they did not answer my queries about open access and did not assist me with buying it, even though I wanted to do so. I got the impression the (outsourced?) staff had too much on their plates and no actual influence over things and even though they redirected my query to Elsevier they never bothered to get back to me.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 4 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
The journal appears likely to rely on comments from one reviewer in the review process. In this instance, the comments were brief but clear, and focused largely on concerns about making sure the study's justification and contribution were clearly stated. The editorial feedback was limited, suggesting that editors focus on making decisions based on reviewer feedback.

After the initial review process, the journal is quick to make decisions about publication. The editor accepted the manuscript quickly without another round of reviews once the revision and response letter were submitted.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 5 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 5 / 5
The review process was based primarily on one reviewer's rating, which may or may not be preferable to some, but the reviewer was thorough and used a systematic set of criteria for comments provided by the editor. The focus of the review seemed to be on whether the manuscript had a contribution for the journal's audience or not rather than on micromanaging details of the manuscript, which was refreshing. A number of recommendations were made for a revision, but they were helpful. After the initial revision, the final decision was made by the editor promptly, which was efficient. In general, this journal seems to have an expedient review process; if initial reviewer response to an article is favorable, it seems that the revision and resubmission process will be handled somewhat quickly and smoothly.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
The normal submission to decision process can take 4-6 month (as the Journal Manager said) and there were some issues with overdue reviewers.

  ·  Overall quality rating: 3 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 3 / 5
Review A was really helpful; Review B just included 2 sentences. We thought that this was not o.k., especially because we waited for 7 months for the first review process. The major revision was accepted after 2 weeks, that was a nice surprise given the time during phase 1. The editor did not comment on anything concerning the paper.

  ·  Plausibility: 1 / 5  (desk reject)
Given that our manuscript was on video games and aggression, and given that there was a study on that exact topic in the issue published just a couple of days before our submission, the reasoning behind the editorial decision is hard to follow. It was a desk reject because "games do not fit the scope of this journal".

  ·  Overall quality rating: 2 / 5  ·  Recommendation: 2 / 5
Both reviews in the first round were very brief. However, the methodological comments of one review were of a particularly high quality.
The second round of reviews after a "revise & resubmit" decision took quite long which is all the more surprising given that we only received one review after the revision which also was rather brief. The reviewer from round 1 who apparently was familiar with the statistical methods we employed, unfortunately, did not review in the second round.
We were also surprised that the second review came up with concerns that had not been raised in the previous round of reviews. The reviewer in the second round suggested the inclusion of a theoretical concept that had little to do with our study. It seemed that this reviewer wanted to force his/her "pet theory" into our submission and was upset that we did not agree with this suggestion after the first review.
From our experience, it can be somewhat problematic that the reviewers for this journal often do not come from the same field as the authors of a paper which can lead to some unfortunate misunderstandings in the review process.
Overall, the interdisciplinarity of this journal makes the review process a bit of a gamble.

Suggest Journal

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