Reviews for "Psychological Science"

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 Science 5.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2020
Psychological Science n/a n/a 10.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Psychological Science n/a n/a 11.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: an alternative explanation for the data was briefly given, ruling the paper uninteresting for publication
Psychological Science n/a n/a 6.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Psychological Science 4.6
weeks
4.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: The reviewer comments were constructive and helpful, the rejection came down to perception of statistical power.
Psychological Science n/a n/a 7.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Psychological Science 8.4
weeks
16.6
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2016
Motivation: Editor was careful, balanced, and reasonable. Review reports were satisfactory. Speed of whole process was good.
Psychological Science n/a n/a 14.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Psychological Science n/a n/a 19.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Editor suggested submission to a specialty Journal, which be did.
Psychological Science 10.9
weeks
10.9
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2013
Motivation: Although the manuscript was rejected and I disagreed with some of the criticisms, I felt the reviews were thoughtful and thorough. Ultimately, the manuscript was rejected based on the associate editor's opinion that it the impact of the results wasn't substantial enough for this journal.