Reviews for "Journal of Psycholinguistic Research"

Motivation: We initially sent the article for review in January 2022. After six months of hearing nothing, we asked for an update and they said they hadn't found any reviewers and requested a list. We provided an extensive list of reviewers. In November 2022, January 2023, and February 2023 we requested specific information about the status of our manuscript and a timeline for when we can expect the response; in November and January we were told generally by the JEO Assistant that the article was still with reviewers, with the response in January including that the JEO Assistant had contacted the editor to expedite the process. In February the JEO Assistant indicated that the email we sent had been forwarded to the editor for comment, with the Office Staff intending to inform us when the editor responded. After another month with no comment, we contacted the editor-in-chief about the article, asking for a decision to be made. We received no response, although activity in the portal indicated that someone accessed the article (updating its 'last action taking' tracker) but without changing its status as under review. In early May we requested that the article be withdrawn from the journal and to inform us when this was done, and received no response. We repeated the request again today, with the JEO Assistant quickly acting to withdraw the paper. So in total nearly a year and a half was spent waiting on the first response to a potentially multi-round process.

Throughout this entire process, the Office Staff always responded to us promptly and professionally, but themselves received no responses from the editor. As such, and as recent discussions we've had with others in the field indicated that this is a repeated issue with the journal, we cannot in good faith support this journal. Indeed, it feels as if the choice of the journal to report median time to first response is, whether purposefully or accidentally, hiding that they have a repeated issue of unacceptably long review times and withdrawal periods, especially as time to first decision does not necessarily include papers that were withdrawn due to the review process taking an unprofessionally long time.

Motivation: The review process at this journal was frustrating. First, we haven't heard back from the journal for more than 6 months. When we contacted the journal, we were told that our manuscript has not been sent out to reviewers yet because they were not able to identify suitable reviewers (note: the paper is not on a rare, very specific topic), and asked if we can suggest potential reviewers. We did. After which were told that they would get back to us once the reviews are in in about 2 months. They never did. After writing another email to the journal and waiting for a reply for several weeks, we were notified that the reviewers we had suggested were dropped from their system because the reviewers did not submit a review within the given time (1 month?). At that point our manuscript had been with JOPR for more than 10 months but had not been reviewed yet. We requested to withdraw our paper from JOPR so we could submit it elsewhere, but haven't heard back from the journal office. We wrote several emails asking to withdraw the manuscript, to which they finally reacted, a month later. All in all, our manuscript has stayed with JOPR for a year, with no outcome at all.

Motivation: After 12 months of waiting, my coauthors and I received a two-sentence desk rejection from the editor. I wrote to him asking for an explanation; have not heard back and don't expect to.

Motivation: Very slow process