Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Emotion has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor
Disciplines: Psychology

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.7 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 8.9 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 14.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

The review process generally took long, especially for the second revision round (5 months). In that time I contacted the peer review coordinator multiple times, and suggested additional names for reviewers to expedite the process. When reviewers were finally in, a month elapsed before the editor finally made a decision. They rejected the manuscript a year and three months after first submission, based on characteristics that were inherent to the data, and known from the start (no control group, but this was not relevant for the research question), and on an issue with potential confounding that we immediately addressed (quick rerun of analysis with covariate, no change in conclusions). The rejection was unexpected because one (repeat) reviewer recommended minor revisions, and the other (new) reviewer's comments expressed concern, but could be addressed without much trouble. We communicated our viewpoint to the editors, but they concluded the paper could contribute too little to the field, and the lack of control group was too problematic. Barring any feelings of frustration, this conclusion seems unjustifiable: they should have screened the manuscript more attentively at the first submission, or resubmission if they felt the study design was not sound. This late change of attitude makes it seems like they did not like the change to (mostly) null findings.