Communication Studies.
(Central States Communication Association)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 129 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 734 words (SD = 409) |
| Review quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 734 words (SD = 409) |
| Overall tone | Negative (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 110 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Reject (modal) |
| Plausibility | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 3 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 4 / 5
The reviewer recommendations are visible on the reviews and one reviewer recommended an R&R and one recommended a reject. I feel a tad raw because the reviewer that recommended provided a *lengthy* (good) review, but didn't say much of anything specific that should prevent the article's publication. It was the editor's final call and in his letter to me he wrote "he journal is becoming more and more competitive and while your study contributes some insight, the contributions are not novel enough to justify inclusion at this time." So I guess that it's it. There wasn't much wrong with the study, it just wasn't fancy enough I suppose...
The reviewer recommendations are visible on the reviews and one reviewer recommended an R&R and one recommended a reject. I feel a tad raw because the reviewer that recommended provided a *lengthy* (good) review, but didn't say much of anything specific that should prevent the article's publication. It was the editor's final call and in his letter to me he wrote "he journal is becoming more and more competitive and while your study contributes some insight, the contributions are not novel enough to justify inclusion at this time." So I guess that it's it. There wasn't much wrong with the study, it just wasn't fancy enough I suppose...
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion