Communication Quarterly.
(Eastern Communication Association)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 74 days (SD = 59) |
| Review length | 274 words (SD = 157) |
| Review quality | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Would submit again | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9) |
| Journal recommendation | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.9) |
(based on 3 reports including 6 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 274 words (SD = 157) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.7 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Helpfulness | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Fairness | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Overall quality | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 184 words (SD = 81) |
| Decision | Minor Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | 3.3 / 5 (SD = 1.7) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 1.6) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 62 days (SD = 0) |
(based on 2 reports including 2 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | n/a |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Consistency | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 145 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Accept (modal) |
| Plausibility | 3 / 5 (SD = 2) |
| Helpfulness | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 1.5) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The initial MS was sent back to us because the word count was exceeded ("editor will happily look at it if it is shortened"). We trimmed the paper in accordance with the guidelines, only to receive an automated email stating the journal was under an editorial transition at the time, and they wouldn't be
be able to send the manuscript out for review until the end of the following month.
Once it finally went out, we received mixed reviews (one recommending revision with only a paragraph of feedback & one recommended rejection, at least according to the editor)
The negative referee's rejection criteria were superficial, with critiques including: "I know that research on theory X (excluded from this rating) has worked with these measures a lot. However after decades of research better measures and designs are needed." The editorial disposition was equally terse and lacked guidance for improving the MS.
The journal touts their rapid review process, but our experience was that it took 5 months to receive 2 short (and vague) reviews, accompanied by an unsubstantiated rejection.
I discourage others to avoid the venue
The initial MS was sent back to us because the word count was exceeded ("editor will happily look at it if it is shortened"). We trimmed the paper in accordance with the guidelines, only to receive an automated email stating the journal was under an editorial transition at the time, and they wouldn't be
be able to send the manuscript out for review until the end of the following month.
Once it finally went out, we received mixed reviews (one recommending revision with only a paragraph of feedback & one recommended rejection, at least according to the editor)
The negative referee's rejection criteria were superficial, with critiques including: "I know that research on theory X (excluded from this rating) has worked with these measures a lot. However after decades of research better measures and designs are needed." The editorial disposition was equally terse and lacked guidance for improving the MS.
The journal touts their rapid review process, but our experience was that it took 5 months to receive 2 short (and vague) reviews, accompanied by an unsubstantiated rejection.
I discourage others to avoid the venue
· Overall quality rating: 2 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
The manuscript was submitted during an editorial transition, and after nearly a year without hearing from the journal, the new editor confirmed the initial set of reviewers never completed their reviews. The feedback from the editor was encouraging, and the tone was apologetic, so we agreed to resubmit. The article was sent to a new group of reviewers, and after waiting 1.5 years, we finally received reviews.
Reviewer feedback was a mix of extremely positive and downright rude. Comments ranged from "this study is worthwhile and should be published" to "No new contribution to the literature is made by this study. All RQs and Hs are replication of previous studies. The results are neither interesting nor meaningful."
Some suggestions provided by the reviewers were helpful, but on the whole, little guidance was provided.
Overall, our experience was negative, though several colleagues have had success publishing in this venue.
The manuscript was submitted during an editorial transition, and after nearly a year without hearing from the journal, the new editor confirmed the initial set of reviewers never completed their reviews. The feedback from the editor was encouraging, and the tone was apologetic, so we agreed to resubmit. The article was sent to a new group of reviewers, and after waiting 1.5 years, we finally received reviews.
Reviewer feedback was a mix of extremely positive and downright rude. Comments ranged from "this study is worthwhile and should be published" to "No new contribution to the literature is made by this study. All RQs and Hs are replication of previous studies. The results are neither interesting nor meaningful."
Some suggestions provided by the reviewers were helpful, but on the whole, little guidance was provided.
Overall, our experience was negative, though several colleagues have had success publishing in this venue.
· Overall quality rating: 5 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
Editor Ben Bates returned my manuscript to me in record time. The reviews were thoughtful, and the editor did a terrific job describing which of the comments from reviewers he cared about the most (one reviewer was a lot tougher than the other). This was the fastest return I've experienced thus far from a journal, which I think says a lot about the reviewers they have chosen and the cooperation of the editorial team!
Editor Ben Bates returned my manuscript to me in record time. The reviews were thoughtful, and the editor did a terrific job describing which of the comments from reviewers he cared about the most (one reviewer was a lot tougher than the other). This was the fastest return I've experienced thus far from a journal, which I think says a lot about the reviewers they have chosen and the cooperation of the editorial team!
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion