Social Media + Society.
(Sage)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 127 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 759 words (SD = 0) |
| Review quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 1 review) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 759 words (SD = 0) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 376 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Major Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 57 days (SD = 1) |
(based on 1 report including 3 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 117 words (SD = 98) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 3.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Fairness | 4.7 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Consistency | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4.3 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 316 words (SD = 58) |
| Decision | Minor Revision (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 4 / 5 · Recommendation: 5 / 5
The review process for this journal was very fair and straightforward. The reviewers made sensible and realistic remarks and helped improve the quality of the paper. As the submission went from major revision, to minor revision, to accept, the editor's role was quite limited and consisted in passing along the reviews and making a decision that emerged quite clearly from the reviews. The only problem I encountered were the relatively long waiting times: More than 4 months passed to get through the first review round and more than 2 months to get through the second one. Another month passed from submitting minor revisions to final acceptance.
Given that this is a young, promising open access journal with a prestigious editorial board and considering the transparent and fair review process, I can only recommend submitting.
The review process for this journal was very fair and straightforward. The reviewers made sensible and realistic remarks and helped improve the quality of the paper. As the submission went from major revision, to minor revision, to accept, the editor's role was quite limited and consisted in passing along the reviews and making a decision that emerged quite clearly from the reviews. The only problem I encountered were the relatively long waiting times: More than 4 months passed to get through the first review round and more than 2 months to get through the second one. Another month passed from submitting minor revisions to final acceptance.
Given that this is a young, promising open access journal with a prestigious editorial board and considering the transparent and fair review process, I can only recommend submitting.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion