Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
23.0 weeks
23.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
17.4 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
I really do not think that the editor (or the editorial board member) is doing his/her job. During the first round of the review, we got 2 excellent reviews and 1 highly critical review. The reviewer was definitely not qualified, she would not even know what a continuous variable is and she recommended papers which were not related to our paper at all. We cautioned the editor to read our responses to this reviewer carefully in a confidential note to the editor when we submitted the revised manuscript back to the journal. In the second round, we received 5 reviews (3 same from round 1 and 2 new reviewers). 2 of the initial reviewers liked the revisions (one of them had a not slight concern which was not scientific at all). The reviewer who created issues during the first round still objected the paper (she is highly unqualified). One of the two new reviewers liked the paper and the second one recommended a slight statistical change.
Summary:
I would never ever submit to this journal again... 5 reviews is a waste, especially given how hard it is to get reviewers nowadays and how unreliable reviews tend to be. Most of the five reviewers like the paper, and yet it’s still a rejection. The current world is one where you have to please five people to get an article accepted, meaning that controversial research has zero shot.
Summary:
I would never ever submit to this journal again... 5 reviews is a waste, especially given how hard it is to get reviewers nowadays and how unreliable reviews tend to be. Most of the five reviewers like the paper, and yet it’s still a rejection. The current world is one where you have to please five people to get an article accepted, meaning that controversial research has zero shot.
9.6 weeks
9.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2022
Motivation:
Surprisingly swift review and comments from two competent reviewers who have clearly read the manuscript.
14.7 weeks
31.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2022
7.0 weeks
7.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
9.1 weeks
9.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Extremely quick, smooth review process
11.7 weeks
11.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
Motivation:
Rejected due to not fitting the journal. We would have preferred a desk reject in that case.
24.9 weeks
24.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
27.3 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2018
45.1 weeks
45.1 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2020
11.9 weeks
11.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
8.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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
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
12.3 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
15.9 weeks
44.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2016
Motivation:
Good experience overall
17.0 weeks
34.9 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Rejected
2015
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 27.0 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.
16.1 weeks
33.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2013
15.2 weeks
15.2 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2014
Motivation:
Despite my paper being rejected by the editor, the reviews were extensive, on-topic and helpful. Good review process.
26.0 weeks
26.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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