Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Social Networks 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

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 6 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 5.9 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 9.7 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 1.8 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.7 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.7 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 20.0 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The initial decision took far longer than my previously submitted manuscripts to this journal (in the past I've experienced ~6-7 weeks) but admittedly this was also during the start of the COVID pandemic. The manuscript was sent to two reviewers, one of which offered a one-line comment saying the manuscript "This is an exceptionally well-written manuscript. It also makes a significant contribution to the field on social network research methodology." The second reviewer wrote one paragraph but did not point to any necessary changes. After these initial reviews the editor gave the manuscript an "revise & resubmit w/ minor revisions" but it was not clear what either the reviewers or editor wanted to change. Upon inquiry to the editor, I resubmitted without changes and got the paper accepted. Although it was nice to have an acceptance w/o revisions, I felt that the reviewers did not give a thorough read as I failed to believe that there was not one thing worth revising.