Reviews for "Social Forces"

Journal title	Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page)	1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
Social Forces	24.9 weeks	24.9 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	2 (moderate)	Rejected	2019
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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
Social Forces	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