Reviews for "Psychological Medicine"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 30.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: The journal did not give any reason for rejection. Even a few lines of feedback would have helped improve my manuscript, or help decide the next journal. Overall, I found time to desk rejection too long.
Psychological Medicine 21.1
weeks
21.1
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2020
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Psychological Medicine 8.1
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2018
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: The reason for rejection was not clear, although the editor suggested to submit to a specialist journal, hinting the study was too specialist for the journal. However, we appreciated that the response came within a week's time from submission.
Psychological Medicine 27.1
weeks
27.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Very long review process. Journal had some trouble finding reviewers. When the reviews arrived, one was of very good quality with detailed comments, whereas the other review consisted of only two sentences, and provided little information.
Psychological Medicine 4.4
weeks
7.3
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Overall, an excellent, high-quality and speedy review process.
Psychological Medicine 7.6
weeks
19.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: A thoroughly disheartening and shambolic process. First set of reviews: 2 positive, 1 negative. Response of editor: "One of the referees had very major criticisms of your paper. If you believe you can fully address the deficiencies then we would be willing to see a radically revised version. However I should advise you that we would send it back to the same referee. You might therefore want to think carefully whether you wish to do this or consider another journal." We thought carefully, but decided to resubmit because the reviewer had misunderstood some basic methodological details and also made erroneous comments about the statistical analyses. So, of course we could address his/her petty concerns!
In addition to the detailed response to the reviewer, we sent a letter to the editor explaining that we were concerned about possible bias and the various errors s/he had made, providing detailed and blunter rebuttals than would have been sensible to put in the 'response to reviewers' document. The editor is after all an elder statesman of psychiatry, and would obviously make a wise and considered judgement? So we waited for about 2 months and eventually were told the review (singular) had been received and that a decision was imminent. A further two weeks went by and still no word. When we enquired, we were then told that the paper had been sent out for review AGAIN. We thought this was a good sign, believing that the negative reviewer's views must have remained unchanged after the revision and that the sage editor had decided that the fairest course of action was to get a fourth/fifth opinion. And then, two days after that we were told that the paper was rejected (i.e. before the re-re-review). We were only sent the negative reviewer's second set of comments (which predictably contained a series of additional concerns).
It is of course possible that we were viewing our work through rose tinted glasses, seeing it as a major breakthrough in psychiatry (the two positive reviewers took a more modest view of our work, but commended it as important, nonetheless) and that the negative reviewer was right to criticise our work (and the editor right to reject it on the basis of that criticism). But it really concerns me that the editor was so willingly and credulously swayed by a reviewer whose comments, by any measure of pettiness, were trivial and/or based on a misunderstanding of the literature and statistical methods. My feeling was that our fate was sealed after the first reviews and the fairest thing would have been to definitively put us out of our misery at that stage. Instead we waited >5 months to receive a really ill considered decision.
Psychological Medicine 7.6
weeks
8.1
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Psychological Medicine 10.0
weeks
10.7
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Initial round of reviews was somewhat slow, but after that the entire process was quite expedient with excellent communication both from editorial office and the production team.
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 28.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Psychological Medicine n/a n/a 1.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: No one likes rejection, but at least it was handled quickly