European Psychologist.
(Hogrefe)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 52 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 547 words (SD = 141) |
| Review quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 3 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 547 words (SD = 141) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7) |
| Fairness | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.9) |
| Overall quality | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 135 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Major Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 96 days (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 143 words (SD = 38) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Consistency | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 347 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Accept (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
My experience with this submission was almost exclusively positive. The waiting time for reviews was acceptable, particularly given how helpful they turned out to be. Two reviews of our initial submission were rather positive, with some remarks regarding the manuscript's tone in particular. A third review was negative and recommended a rejection of the manuscript. However, the review itself did not comment on the manuscript at all, but exclusively on the general position we took in our text. The comments were direct ad-hominem attacks that denied opinions contradicting the reviewer's the right to exist. At one point the reviewer compared our position to scientists proclaiming intelligent design.
Due to the nature of this last review, and especially in contrast by the two other ones which were generally positive, we asked the editor to exclude this reviewer from further steps in the review process as it was clear that there was no honest interest in actually reviewing the manuscript. The editor agreed to our suggestion and instead offered the reviewer to write up a comment that would appear alongside our submission in European Psychologist. This solution was very pleasing to us as it ensured an unbiased review process without silencing the voice of scholars that are critical of our manuscript.
My experience with this submission was almost exclusively positive. The waiting time for reviews was acceptable, particularly given how helpful they turned out to be. Two reviews of our initial submission were rather positive, with some remarks regarding the manuscript's tone in particular. A third review was negative and recommended a rejection of the manuscript. However, the review itself did not comment on the manuscript at all, but exclusively on the general position we took in our text. The comments were direct ad-hominem attacks that denied opinions contradicting the reviewer's the right to exist. At one point the reviewer compared our position to scientists proclaiming intelligent design.
Due to the nature of this last review, and especially in contrast by the two other ones which were generally positive, we asked the editor to exclude this reviewer from further steps in the review process as it was clear that there was no honest interest in actually reviewing the manuscript. The editor agreed to our suggestion and instead offered the reviewer to write up a comment that would appear alongside our submission in European Psychologist. This solution was very pleasing to us as it ensured an unbiased review process without silencing the voice of scholars that are critical of our manuscript.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion