Journal of Clinical Psychology

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Journal of Clinical Psychology has not yet provided information for this page.

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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.9 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 11.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 3.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 1.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 3.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 12.7 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
Over three cycles of review, with two reviews each time, there were two reviewers who liked the paper and were satisfied with the manuscript, and one who would not be satisfied (who was not a reviewer until round 2). The authors were disappointed that this paper went from a minor revision (at review #1) to a rejection (at review #3), but feel the editor may have been in a bind due to that reviewer. With an average of 4 months per review, this process delayed the publication of this paper by a year and a half. Trying not to let the outcome skew our impressions of the review process, we do wish (1) a new reviewer hadn't been brought in during round 2, (2) the new reviewer's opinions hadn't been weighted above the other two, (3) the process hadn't taken so long, (4) we hadn't been asked to complete a revision after review #2, if the reviewer was never going to be satisified with our methods.