Qualitative Sociology

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Qualitative Sociology 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: Sociology

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 7.3 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 7.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 3.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments n/a compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 1.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 31.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad). Outcome: Rejected.

The Qualitative Sociology website states that the average time for review is 85 days. This paper took 145 days to be reviewed (that is, almost double of the time expected). Also, after submitting the paper in March, and not having heard from the journal since then, I contacted the journal in late July. I was then told that they had trouble finding scholars working in the field who would agree to review the paper, but in any case I would get feedback by late August. Not having received any feedback, I contacted the journal again in early September. Was then told that the feedback would arrive by mid-October, which it finally did. Two reviewers, while making relevant critiques, were also constructive. One of them says that "This could turn in to a meaningful contribution for Qualitative Sociology"; the other is less enthusiastic, but nonetheless states that "The execution [of the manuscripts] can be revised to meet the expectations raised in the [promising] abstract". The first reviewer, with a more negative tone, says stuff like "the author should have more confidence in his or her work rather than anticipating imaginary criticism". No bother commenting on that. With 2 reviewers willing to accept revisions, the editor nonetheless chose to reject the paper.