Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
11.1 weeks
51.9 weeks
n/a
13 reports
5
5
Rejected
6.3 weeks
13.3 weeks
n/a
1 reports
5
5
Accepted
9.4 weeks
14.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
Motivation: After my manuscript was sent to two reviewers (one with very positive comments and one more critical), the editor decided to reject the manuscript. Although some points raised by one of the reviewer and the handling editor were fair, I regret that there was no possibility to respond to these comments and resubmit a revised version... Otherwise, the delay of the review process was ok and the handling editor choice of reviewers was relevant (both reviewers signed their review, which is highly appreciable as an author).
18.0 weeks
35.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was very long and I think the second review process was not clearly justified, notably after taking into account previous reviewer comments during the first round. At the end it took more than a year, four reviews and a hesitating handling editor that did not want to take a clear decision, before my manuscript was finally accepted for publication. Such publication delays are not acceptable for a journal of this quality.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
18.0 weeks
28.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
1
Accepted
Motivation: Review process a little slow, but still ok, reviews also sincere and good quality. Problem was, after the revised acceptance by the editor, the paper was held back for 15 (!) months before final publication. Pre-print was available online already, but no Issue number etc., so no proper citation was possible.
14.5 weeks
14.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: It took 14 weeks to get a rejection, which is not as bad as some journals. However, it seems a bit lengthy given that the rejections were not extremely deep. The criticisms were not petty for the most part, but they had completely overridden the positive reviewer's feedback.
5.6 weeks
5.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The quick turn around time, even though it was a rejection, was good.
40.4 weeks
40.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
1
Accepted
Motivation: I waited 10 months to get the reviewers' opinions which were very succint. There is apparently a problem with this journal. The associate editor I exchange with was not able to contact the Chief Editor to send him my manuscript. I finally (after nine months and half of waiting and multiple dunning emails to the associate editor) decide to contact the Chief Editor myself who gave me a really fast answer in three days. The final version of the article was published two months after that.
26.6 weeks
42.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
2
Accepted
17.6 weeks
23.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: The whole process took more than I expected, starting with the overzealous quality check, which, in my case, asked me to explain details that were clearly already written in the manuscript, as per observed editorial policies. Apparently they will not consider this the submission date, but only when it got past this check stage. We had no detailed feedback from one reviewer and a sober review from the other reviewer, which helped to improve the text. After the simple requested changes were made, a long time elapsed before the acceptance letter was sent. Also of interest for researcher awaiting an editorial response, after the tracking system showed the "decision made" status, it took almost two weeks before the decision was revealed to the corresponding author.
14.0 weeks
17.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
6.1 weeks
10.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 196.0 days
Drawn back
Motivation: Manuscript status was "Editor assigned" in the submission system for six months. I contacted the editorial office staff and editors several times, after which I was assured the editor would be reminded to expedite the process. However, I was never contacted (I would have been satisfied with being told they needed more time to find reviewers). Wasted so much time waiting for them, submit at your own risk!
12.0 weeks
13.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: In retrospect the process was relatively painless but it felt very long during the review. Two weeks after the submission the manuscript was sent to review. Judging from the 'last activity date' two reviews were back within about 2 weeks but we were left waiting for 6 weeks. Upon our inquiry the editor decided to go with the reviews at hand -- then the manuscript remained "under evaluation" for a month before the decision. The reviews were of high quality, but not particularly different from the kinds we get for the society-level journals. Taking two weeks to revise, we resubmitted, and the manuscript was accepted in 10 days. Overall it took 15.5 weeks to get accepted after the initial submission. I believe this was a relatively uncontroversial case and it would have been accepted in less than two months at a society-level journal in our field, but the outcome was worth the wait.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
12.0 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
30.4 weeks
30.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: Despite the review process was long, the editors were very helpful and responsive.
7.6 weeks
15.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Very fast and efficient website. I really appreciate that the response was fast, and I didn't need to do massive formatting work on the manuscript. I only wished that the paper was reviewed before being declined.
7.6 weeks
8.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
Motivation: The process was very smooth. Although one review was very negative and of low quality (in the authors' opinion), the associate editor sided with the other review that was much more positive. The manuscript was sent to review and decisions were taken in a timely manner.
n/a
n/a
289 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
61 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
0.7 weeks
0.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: This was for a special issue, and the scope they mentioned in the rejection mail was quite a bit different from the original call.
12.7 weeks
39.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process wasn't very fast, but the reviews ultimately did help me improve my paper a great deal.
8.0 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
5
5
Accepted
10.6 weeks
20.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
2
Accepted
Motivation: The quality of reviews and editorial comments were high and worth the relatively long review period. The quality of production editing, however, was not up to standard and required extra effort (i.e., several iterations and repeated comments).
24.7 weeks
49.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
Motivation: - The editorial process takes FOREVER. We send several mails to the editor to check or to get updates, but none of these e-mails were answered.
- The review are very poor. The reviewers did not have bad intentions, but clearly, it was not their field of expertise.
+ I have the feeling that Cultural Sociology accepts just about anything. While the process is incredibly long, and you get a lot of request to revise (which do not improve the article), your article will get published in the end. I will only consider Cultural Sociology again if I have an article which does not get accepted anywhere else.
Immediately accepted after 3.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
16.4 weeks
21.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: The review process was generally good. A bit quicker would have been good, but all communication with the editorial support was excellent. In addition one of the reviewer comments were good, but obviously a bit biased in that they clearly wanted several of their own papers cited.
2.7 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
15 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The time taken to arrive at a rejection by the editor was inappropriately long (2 weeks).
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Received a desk-reject within two weeks without a clear reason stated.
18.4 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
4
Accepted
Motivation: I got a very positive and very negative review in the first round. The editor specified what comments I had to take seriously, taking both the negative and positive review into account. This was very helpful.
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: my very this paper after publication in other journal got cited by a paper of this journal within a month & they told me NOT FIT !!!!