Rationality and Society

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Rationality and Society 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 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 11.3 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 1.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 2.5 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments n/a compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 1.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 56.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad). Outcome: Rejected.

Taking over 13 months to review an article, and then rejecting it, is a waste of valuable time that the scientific community cannot afford in these days, when rapid creation of a publication record is absolutely crucial for young people in the process of establishing themselves as independent scholars. Other journals manage to review manuscripts faster (see many other reviews on this webpage), and one round of reviews should not have to take over 13 months. This is said irrespective of the final decision (reject); I would express the same criticism also if the manuscript had been accepted. It shall be added that (1) the manuscript was not sent to external reviewers until seven months after submission, which means the extreme delay was primarily on behalf of the journal's editors, and (2) the final decision was only conveyed to me (the author) after email reminders/repeated inquiries about the state of the review process. My overall impression of this journal is, therefore, that it cares little about its (potential) authors and is in great need of improving its routines for handling of manuscripts.