Latest review
First review round: 8.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The journal appears overly fixated on certain formalistic requirements. For instance, during the review process, they demanded raw data and insisted that IRB approval dates must precede data collection. While rigor is certainly commendable, excessive formalism becomes counterproductive—especially when the editorial team disregards researchers' explanations, wasting everyone's time. In fact, our study did not involve any physical or psychological impact on participants; it was merely a social survey on certain attitudes, which arguably did not require IRB approval at all. Ironically, our commitment to rigor—providing the IRB approval number—ended up becoming the very reason for rejection.
