All reviews received by SciRev

Motivation: The editorial decision at Work and Occupations is a classic case of methodological gatekeeping. For a journal in the social sciences, their refusal to value qualitative depth and theoretical saturation over raw numbers is frustrating. They treat "generalizability" as a purely quantitative metric, completely ignoring the power of thick description and localized conceptual unpacking in the Global South. This journal is interested in the subject of work, but clearly lacks the sociological imagination to respect the depth of qualitative research.

Motivation: Apparently we didn't make the "work that makes a really substantial and new contribution to the discipline, and speaks to a general political studies audience" criterion. Would have appreciated this evaluation a bit more quickly.

Motivation: They need to prioritize (we all understand that), but no reason was given why the manuscript wasn't considered priority.

Motivation: The editor-in-chief argued that the work does not present a sufficient enough advance. The associate editor felt that "More work is needed to substantiate the conclusions in your manuscript," without elaborating.

Motivation: My experience with this journal was frustrating because the editorial decision was not communicated clearly. The system indicated that my manuscript should be transferred to another journal, but it was not obvious whether this meant rejection due to scientific quality, lack of fit with the journal’s scope, or another editorial reason.

For authors, understanding the basis of a decision is important. Without clear explanation or constructive feedback, it is difficult to know how to improve the manuscript or decide the best next step. The transfer option may be helpful in some cases, but it should be accompanied by transparent editorial comments so authors can understand why the original submission was not accepted. A clearer and more informative communication process would greatly improve the author experience.

Motivation: The form above does not consider the case where, after sending out to reviewers, no decision is made at all. After almost a year under review (50 weeks), no reviews and no decision were actually received. Despite my repeated requests and the repeated attempts of the Springer editorial assistant (who did their job excellently I must say), the handling editor failed to ensure that enough reviews were received in a reasonable amount of time. As a result, I had no choice but to withdraw the paper.

Based on my experience (which may have been isolated), I would urge colleagues not to submit to this journal, as in the 50 weeks I spent waiting for a decision that never came, I could have had 2 or more rounds of reviews elsewhere.

Motivation: They spent over 25 days in "submitted to journal" status and rejected. They could have been faster.

Motivation: Desk rejected after a 30-day wait. The email was not saying anything specific to the submitted manuscript "[...] we do not think that the technical advances presented will have a sufficiently substantial and immediate practical relevance to our readership [...]".

Motivation: While the initial round of reviews provided constructive feedback, the overall management of the manuscript was extremely inefficient. The process lasted 18 months in total, with more than 7 months spent waiting for a decision on the revised version. Ultimately, the editorial office admitted they were unable to secure any reviewers for the second round and that the handling editor would not take a responsibility for a decision based on the existing revisions. Despite the polite communication from the Journal Manager, the lack of proactive editorial handling forced me to withdraw the manuscript to avoid further indefinite delays. I advise colleagues to be cautious regarding the current administrative backlog of this journal.

Motivation: I didn't exactly agree it wasn't a right fit, but I appreciate the fast response.

Motivation: The editorial process at this journal was significantly flawed and professionally damaging. It took the journal exactly 632 days to reach a final rejection decision. For an early-career researcher, a wait of nearly 1.75 years for a single outcome is unacceptable and demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the researcher's career and the temporal relevance of the data.
This extreme delay created a critical issue with the study's validity; a prediction model utilizing 2023 as a reference point is rendered obsolete when the review process extends into 2026. Despite this nearly two-year wait, the manuscript was ultimately rejected for "methodological concerns" that should have been addressed in the first month, not the 90.5th week. Furthermore, the massive drop in the journal's publication volume (from 17,000 papers in 2024 to a drastic reduction currently) suggests a journal in crisis. I strongly advise colleagues to avoid this journal to save their time and their careers.

Motivation: Very strict assessment, but a fair critique.

Motivation: Total time under review was 13 months.
No status updates were provided during this period.
Two reviews were eventually returned. Both were of reasonable technical quality and could have been produced within a standard 2-3 month timeframe. Both reviewer criticised and down scored the manuscript for not citing references from 2025, despite the manuscript having been submitted in early 2025 — these references did not exist at the time of submission.
Decision was rejection without opportunity for revision, despite reviewer recommending major revision and resubmission.

Motivation: The manuscript was with the editor for more than six months without any advancement. The editor ghosted the corresponding author and refused to provide updates, but was very quick to respond when we decided to withdraw the manuscript. The editorial team never owned up to their unprofessionalism. Not recommended.

Motivation: It took over 7 months for the manuscript to be sent to reviewers. Once it was, 6 agreed to review, however the paper was rejected less than a month later with only two reviews, one of which was detailed and positive (3 pages of formatted text) and the other very superficial but negative (3 paragraphs of plain text). The editor's comments were a rewording of the negative review, and I suspect that they didn't download the more positive and detailed report which was provided as a pdf file rather than text comments on the review form.

Motivation: Decision was taken by an associate editor that considered the paper outside the scope of the Journal., without any further details. This was somewhat unexpected since the Journal published several similar works in the past.

Motivation: After i submitted my revised manuscript the system remained with editor for many months i contacted the editorial office and springer and no one helped me the answer was always that they are actively handling my manuscript. for one year they are handling it from 14 june 2025 and now its 26 may 2026 and its still with the editor. This caused much delay for me and frustration so i withdrawed the paper at the end.

Motivation: Simple desk reject.

Motivation: Quick desk reject, allows us to move on without waiting for long.