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 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