Psychological Methods.
(American Psychological Associations)
First round of reviews.
Turnaround rate | n/a |
Review length | n/a |
Review quality | n/a |
Overall quality | n/a |
Would submit again | n/a |
Journal recommendation | n/a |
Desk rejects. |
|
Turnaround rate | 9 days (SD = 0) |
Plausibility | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report) |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
Reviewers | |
Length | n/a |
Overall tone | n/a |
Knowledge | n/a |
Helpfulness | n/a |
Fairness | n/a |
Overall quality | n/a |
Editors | |
Length | n/a |
Decision | n/a |
Plausibility | n/a |
Helpfulness | n/a |
Fairness | n/a |
Overall quality | n/a |
Comments
· Plausibility: 4 / 5 (desk reject)
Our manuscript was desk-rejected because the editor felt it dealt with something too specific for the audience of PM. I've seen many other arguably more "specific" manuscripts successfully published in PM, but I am still not sour about the editor's decision simply because two wrongs do not make one right. Our manuscript was, in fact, fairly specific, and I am thus not really disappointed. I only wish the same rationale would be applied to other submissions made to this excellent journal.
Our manuscript was desk-rejected because the editor felt it dealt with something too specific for the audience of PM. I've seen many other arguably more "specific" manuscripts successfully published in PM, but I am still not sour about the editor's decision simply because two wrongs do not make one right. Our manuscript was, in fact, fairly specific, and I am thus not really disappointed. I only wish the same rationale would be applied to other submissions made to this excellent journal.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion