Communication Education.
(Taylor & Francis)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 62 days (SD = 3) |
| Review length | 1176 words (SD = 0) |
| Review quality | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 2 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 1176 words (SD = 0) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Fairness | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Overall quality | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 700 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Accept (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 36 days (SD = 33) |
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 676 words (SD = 0) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Consistency | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | n/a |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
To me, Paul Witt is the very model of what a journal editor in the communication discipline should be. I have interacted with him on two manuscripts I have submitted to this journal, as well as served as a reviewer. In all cases, I have found him to evaluate reviewer feedback with careful thought, and to explain the basis for his decision in a detailed manner to the author. His turnaround time is also consistently quick. Overall, an excellent experience at this journal, and I would highly recommend that my colleagues send their instructional communication work here.
To me, Paul Witt is the very model of what a journal editor in the communication discipline should be. I have interacted with him on two manuscripts I have submitted to this journal, as well as served as a reviewer. In all cases, I have found him to evaluate reviewer feedback with careful thought, and to explain the basis for his decision in a detailed manner to the author. His turnaround time is also consistently quick. Overall, an excellent experience at this journal, and I would highly recommend that my colleagues send their instructional communication work here.
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
The editor (Paul Witt, Ph.D.) was great to work with and offered good suggestions at times. One of the reviewers is basically the example of what an ideal reviewer should be: she/he was clear and precise in their comments, their comments were substantiated with an explanation, and they offered suggestions for related material that might be worth including. I can honestly say that the completed article is better for having had that reviewer provide comments. The other reviewer was also helpful, although provided fewer comments that took longer to fully understand. In general, the editor responded fairly quickly between revisions: ~3 months for round 1, ~2 months for round 2, and a couple days to the editorial decision. Yes, it would be nice if this were quicker; however, I've had other submissions to different journals that took longer to 6 months to get the first review back and Communication Education had this process entirely complete (i.e., 3 rounds of reviews) within that time frame. In summary, Paul Witt and Communication Education were great to work with, had a reasonable review time and comments, and I would definitely recommend others consider submitting to this journal (I certainly will)!
The editor (Paul Witt, Ph.D.) was great to work with and offered good suggestions at times. One of the reviewers is basically the example of what an ideal reviewer should be: she/he was clear and precise in their comments, their comments were substantiated with an explanation, and they offered suggestions for related material that might be worth including. I can honestly say that the completed article is better for having had that reviewer provide comments. The other reviewer was also helpful, although provided fewer comments that took longer to fully understand. In general, the editor responded fairly quickly between revisions: ~3 months for round 1, ~2 months for round 2, and a couple days to the editorial decision. Yes, it would be nice if this were quicker; however, I've had other submissions to different journals that took longer to 6 months to get the first review back and Communication Education had this process entirely complete (i.e., 3 rounds of reviews) within that time frame. In summary, Paul Witt and Communication Education were great to work with, had a reasonable review time and comments, and I would definitely recommend others consider submitting to this journal (I certainly will)!
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion