Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.
(Wiley)
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 | 170 days (SD = 0) |
| Plausibility | 1 / 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: 1 / 5 (desk reject)
We submitted our manusript on August 29, 2014 and received a desk rejection on February 15, 2015. We feel that a desk rejection without external review after a period of 5.5 months is neither professional nor fair. Within that amount of time we could have already submitted the manuscript to another journal, which may have increased our chance to find an outlet for our work. We can certainly understand that journals reserve their right to reject any paper based on an initial read and not send it out for review, however, we feel that taking 5.5 months for an initial read of a 4405-word paper is not acceptable.
Moreover, the reasons given for the desk rejection were rather unconvincing as the decision was merely based on the fact that our studies were correlational and a rather ill-defined statement of the editor that our "measures came into question". However, no reason was given as to why the editor believed this was the case.
Overall, we feel that we have not only suffered a loss in time, but also in up-to-dateness, that can both not be undone.
We submitted our manusript on August 29, 2014 and received a desk rejection on February 15, 2015. We feel that a desk rejection without external review after a period of 5.5 months is neither professional nor fair. Within that amount of time we could have already submitted the manuscript to another journal, which may have increased our chance to find an outlet for our work. We can certainly understand that journals reserve their right to reject any paper based on an initial read and not send it out for review, however, we feel that taking 5.5 months for an initial read of a 4405-word paper is not acceptable.
Moreover, the reasons given for the desk rejection were rather unconvincing as the decision was merely based on the fact that our studies were correlational and a rather ill-defined statement of the editor that our "measures came into question". However, no reason was given as to why the editor believed this was the case.
Overall, we feel that we have not only suffered a loss in time, but also in up-to-dateness, that can both not be undone.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion