Follow @scirev on Twitter
Reviews for "Social Forces"
| 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 |
| Social Forces | 7.0 weeks |
7.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2021 |
| Motivation: Two reviewers were very positive, one was hostile because we did not refer to critical race theory, and then made up criticism that simply does not apply. It's really puzzling how the editor handled this, because already the abstract makes it clear that this made-up criticism does not apply. I guess the editor does not accept papers where one of the reviewers suggests a rejection. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 9.1 weeks |
9.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
5 (excellent) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Motivation: Extremely quick, smooth review process | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 11.7 weeks |
11.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2021 |
| Motivation: Rejected due to not fitting the journal. We would have preferred a desk reject in that case. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 24.9 weeks |
24.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: Review process was incredibly slow. Reviews were of good quality. However, reviews were very positive, so the decision to reject was somewhat confusing. Editor justified decision by alluding to fit with the broader focus of the journal. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 27.3 weeks |
27.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Rejected | 2018 |
| Social Forces | 45.1 weeks |
45.1 weeks |
n/a | 4 | 4 (very good) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2020 |
| Social Forces | 11.9 weeks |
11.9 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: The reviews were reasonably extensive. The editors explained their decision. Although as authors we could argue with the reviewers, the journal's process felt fair. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 8.4 weeks |
8.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2019 |
| Motivation: The second review was about 127 words. In the first review, the reviewer adressed a question about the statistical method showing that he do not understand what this method is about. More precisely, he asked what variable was in the x axis of the graph, whereas the in PCA/MCA methods, x and y axis cannot be a given variable |
||||||||
| Social Forces | 12.3 weeks |
12.3 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected | 2016 |
| Motivation: The reivewers' comments sound as if there have been a few misunderstandings regarding the method used (fixed effects rather than OLS). Essentially the reviewers seem to be recommending to use the same method as we already did but obviously did not understand FE. For this reason, we were wondering if these methodological misunderstandings were a decisive factor in the negative editorial decision on our manuscript and if so, whether the editorial team would consider consulting another reviewer. However, the editorial team - unfortunatenly - declined to consider another reviewer. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 15.9 weeks |
44.7 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2016 |
| Motivation: Good experience overall | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 17.0 weeks |
34.9 weeks |
n/a | 5 | 3 (good) |
0 (very bad) |
Rejected | 2015 |
| Social Forces | Drawn back before first editorial decision after 27 days | Drawn back | 2016 | |||||
| Motivation: On the website, Social Forces mentions its commitment to speedy review several times. The website clearly says that administrative processing takes one business day - we found that it took seven. And where the journal says repeatedly that they respect authors time and will make speedy decisions to desk reject, we heard nothing for three weeks, even though we sent a polite follow up email. We subsequently decided to withdraw the paper. Perhaps the process is not slow overall, but for a journal that makes many claims about being speedy, over three weeks to not even know whether the paper would be peer reviewed seems like a lot. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 16.1 weeks |
33.1 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 5 (excellent) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted | 2013 |
| Social Forces | 15.2 weeks |
15.2 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
4 (very good) |
Rejected | 2014 |
| Motivation: Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process. | ||||||||
| Social Forces | 26.0 weeks |
26.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
2 (moderate) |
Rejected | 2012 |
| Motivation: I don't think the editor understood the comments of the reviewers. Either way, he did not give a good reason to reject the piece | ||||||||