Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
24.7 weeks
49.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
2018
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.
21.7 weeks
32.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2013
Motivation: The review process for Cultural Sociology was great; really, it was an example of how the peer review process should function. The timelines were reasonable (9.5 months from first submission to acceptance after revisions, less than 1 year from submission to online publication), and the editor solicited excellent reviews. The reviewers' comments and suggestions really helped me improve the manuscript; they really engaged with my work, and their comments focused on helping me frame and draw out the most important conceptual issues. In fact, the editors comments seemed to suggest that I should make fairly minimal revisions, but I ended up doing more revision than was actually asked for, because a couple of suggestions in the reviews really inspired me. In the end, the paper was much better for having gone through the review process (and how often can we truly say that?).
17.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
2014
Motivation: I was disappointed with the reviewers' comments. They liked the paper, but were not able/willing to give fundamental critique or suggestions which could improve the manuscript.

26.0 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
1
Accepted
2013