Sex Roles.
(Springer)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 94 days (SD = 66) |
| Review length | 814 words (SD = 548) |
| Review quality | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.6) |
| Overall quality | 2.4 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Would submit again | 1.6 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Journal recommendation | 1.6 / 5 (SD = 1) |
(based on 7 reports including 11 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | 1 days (SD = 0) |
| Plausibility | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report) |
|
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 814 words (SD = 548) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.6 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Fairness | 3.9 / 5 (SD = 0.8) |
| Overall quality | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.6) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 856 words (SD = 567) |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 2.4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 78 days (SD = 25) |
(based on 3 reports including 7 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 479 words (SD = 130) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 3.4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Consistency | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 664 words (SD = 384) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Helpfulness | 1.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Fairness | 1.8 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 1.2 / 5 (SD = 0.4) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
One year after having first submitted our paper, it was rejected (after the second revision), based on inconsistent and incomprehensible feedback from the chief editor. In the previous review rounds, the editor's requests on how to revise the paper made it very clear that she has no proper understanding of the idea of psychological experimentation. (For instance, she wanted us to discuss at length the cultural background of our research participants and of the country in which we conducted our experiments.)
Also, she seems to have a set of pre-arranged phrases which she keeps including into her editorial decision letters, irrespective of whether they apply to the paper under consideration and irrespective of whether you had responded to them in the previous revision of the paper. It was quite obvious to us that she did not even take a look at the accompanying letters we had submitted which were requested alongside the revised versions of our manuscript.
In each round of the review process the editor involved new reviewers. The reviews were, on average, of high quality and very helpful.
Perhaps it was our mistake that we attempted to comply with the editor's suggestions on how to revise our paper even though we considered many of them to be of little help or even inappropriate. In the third and final round, the reviewers criticized exactly the points which we had changed in response to the editor's requests (from the second round). The editor then, in turn, based her decision to reject the paper exactly on these criticisms the reviewers had (legitimately) advanced.
It is a pity that this journal, as the only one specializing in gender issues, is not a recommendable outlet, unless there is a change in chief editorship.
One year after having first submitted our paper, it was rejected (after the second revision), based on inconsistent and incomprehensible feedback from the chief editor. In the previous review rounds, the editor's requests on how to revise the paper made it very clear that she has no proper understanding of the idea of psychological experimentation. (For instance, she wanted us to discuss at length the cultural background of our research participants and of the country in which we conducted our experiments.)
Also, she seems to have a set of pre-arranged phrases which she keeps including into her editorial decision letters, irrespective of whether they apply to the paper under consideration and irrespective of whether you had responded to them in the previous revision of the paper. It was quite obvious to us that she did not even take a look at the accompanying letters we had submitted which were requested alongside the revised versions of our manuscript.
In each round of the review process the editor involved new reviewers. The reviews were, on average, of high quality and very helpful.
Perhaps it was our mistake that we attempted to comply with the editor's suggestions on how to revise our paper even though we considered many of them to be of little help or even inappropriate. In the third and final round, the reviewers criticized exactly the points which we had changed in response to the editor's requests (from the second round). The editor then, in turn, based her decision to reject the paper exactly on these criticisms the reviewers had (legitimately) advanced.
It is a pity that this journal, as the only one specializing in gender issues, is not a recommendable outlet, unless there is a change in chief editorship.
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The editor had (obviously) not read the paper, provided irrelevant feedback. When I emailed for confirmation, editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said the critique was still valid. Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with this one. Paper was accepted at a much better journal in the end.
The editor had (obviously) not read the paper, provided irrelevant feedback. When I emailed for confirmation, editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said the critique was still valid. Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with this one. Paper was accepted at a much better journal in the end.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The chief editor of this journal has a very "idiosyncratic" style, to say the least. Many of her recommendations made little sense, and some contradicted the reviewers' suggestions. Yet she appeared to be absolutely certain of herself and even of her most preposterous (and verifiably incorrect) demands.
Even though I was submitting for a special issue with highly respected guest editors (whose feedback was excellent), the chief editor apparently took all decisions on my MS herself and treated the guest editors just like additional reviewers.
After some additional highly unpleasant experiences with this journal, also in the role of reviewer, I will not submit any more papers, nor will I review for this journal again, at least until there is a change in chief editor.
The chief editor of this journal has a very "idiosyncratic" style, to say the least. Many of her recommendations made little sense, and some contradicted the reviewers' suggestions. Yet she appeared to be absolutely certain of herself and even of her most preposterous (and verifiably incorrect) demands.
Even though I was submitting for a special issue with highly respected guest editors (whose feedback was excellent), the chief editor apparently took all decisions on my MS herself and treated the guest editors just like additional reviewers.
After some additional highly unpleasant experiences with this journal, also in the role of reviewer, I will not submit any more papers, nor will I review for this journal again, at least until there is a change in chief editor.
· Overall quality rating: 3 / 5 · Recommendation: 2 / 5
Relatively positive reviews (one review was extremely positive). The editor rejected the manuscript, however, based on some questionable reasons.
Relatively positive reviews (one review was extremely positive). The editor rejected the manuscript, however, based on some questionable reasons.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
While the responses were always timely, the overall review process was not exactly standard policy. Before sending it out to any reviewers, the editor requested several adjustments, which took quite some time to address.
In the final decision (after being considered by two other reviewers, which I felt had a fair analysis of the paper), the editor decided to reject the paper. However, the editor's rationale for why the paper got rejected was rather...bizarre. It came down on the editor completely wanting to change the tone and content of the paper (e.g. from a review article to a research article focused on a single country), which is ofcourse simply impossible.
While I feel Sex Roles is a great journal, I do feel (and others with me, considering colleagues' recent experiences with the editor) that the editor is being quite unreasonable and is slowly but surely destroying her own journal... I am very hesitant about ever submitting another paper to this journal because of the way the editor handles things.
While the responses were always timely, the overall review process was not exactly standard policy. Before sending it out to any reviewers, the editor requested several adjustments, which took quite some time to address.
In the final decision (after being considered by two other reviewers, which I felt had a fair analysis of the paper), the editor decided to reject the paper. However, the editor's rationale for why the paper got rejected was rather...bizarre. It came down on the editor completely wanting to change the tone and content of the paper (e.g. from a review article to a research article focused on a single country), which is ofcourse simply impossible.
While I feel Sex Roles is a great journal, I do feel (and others with me, considering colleagues' recent experiences with the editor) that the editor is being quite unreasonable and is slowly but surely destroying her own journal... I am very hesitant about ever submitting another paper to this journal because of the way the editor handles things.
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The reviewers had legitimate comments to offer. One didn't seem to have much experience with the topic, but still had constructive criticism to offer. The other provided some useful suggestions. Both seemed to indicate minor revisions.
The editor, however, stepped in and suggested I revise the manuscript entirely. She said there were too many hypotheses and, gasp, some of them were not supported, so it was unpublishable. (I have submitted to the journal before with the same feedback--she will not accept manuscripts with unconfirmed hypotheses.) Unlike a typical R&R, she unsubmitted the manuscript (i.e., it would not go back to the same reviewers) so I could rewrite the whole thing and resubmit it anew--I'm guessing because both of the reviewers were so positive and okay with minor revisions and she disagreed with them.
Needless to say, I was not pleased with the dictatorial decision and declined to resubmit the paper. Between this incident and the editor's philosophy that unconfirmed hypotheses cannot be published, I will not submit to this journal ever again. I'm guessing others feel the same as the journal's impact factor has tanked over the past few years.
The reviewers had legitimate comments to offer. One didn't seem to have much experience with the topic, but still had constructive criticism to offer. The other provided some useful suggestions. Both seemed to indicate minor revisions.
The editor, however, stepped in and suggested I revise the manuscript entirely. She said there were too many hypotheses and, gasp, some of them were not supported, so it was unpublishable. (I have submitted to the journal before with the same feedback--she will not accept manuscripts with unconfirmed hypotheses.) Unlike a typical R&R, she unsubmitted the manuscript (i.e., it would not go back to the same reviewers) so I could rewrite the whole thing and resubmit it anew--I'm guessing because both of the reviewers were so positive and okay with minor revisions and she disagreed with them.
Needless to say, I was not pleased with the dictatorial decision and declined to resubmit the paper. Between this incident and the editor's philosophy that unconfirmed hypotheses cannot be published, I will not submit to this journal ever again. I'm guessing others feel the same as the journal's impact factor has tanked over the past few years.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
The reviewers seemed thorough in providing an explanation for their feedback.
The reviewers seemed thorough in providing an explanation for their feedback.
· Plausibility: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
This manuscript was desk-rejected rapidly, which is commendable, but the rationale for the rejection seemed unusual. Justifications for the rejection included the absence of a table for results pertaining to one DV. A key justification for the rejection was an inadequate basis in feminist theory, which is understandable (though debatable for this manuscript), but not consistent with other editorial decisions I have contributed to as a reviewer.
This manuscript was desk-rejected rapidly, which is commendable, but the rationale for the rejection seemed unusual. Justifications for the rejection included the absence of a table for results pertaining to one DV. A key justification for the rejection was an inadequate basis in feminist theory, which is understandable (though debatable for this manuscript), but not consistent with other editorial decisions I have contributed to as a reviewer.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion