Reviews for "Social Networks"

Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
19.4
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: It takes 6 months to get the 1st review comments. Two reviewers' comments are of high quality but polarized, one suggesting minor revision and find it very interesting, while the other points out a few critics on the theory and methods, which can all be easily solved by revision. Unfortunately, the editors did not grant a revising or an opportunity for explanation. It takes quite long and should have already been in R&R if in other journals.
20.0
weeks
20.0
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: The initial decision took far longer than my previously submitted manuscripts to this journal (in the past I've experienced ~6-7 weeks) but admittedly this was also during the start of the COVID pandemic. The manuscript was sent to two reviewers, one of which offered a one-line comment saying the manuscript "This is an exceptionally well-written manuscript. It also makes a significant contribution to the field on social network research methodology." The second reviewer wrote one paragraph but did not point to any necessary changes. After these initial reviews the editor gave the manuscript an "revise & resubmit w/ minor revisions" but it was not clear what either the reviewers or editor wanted to change. Upon inquiry to the editor, I resubmitted without changes and got the paper accepted. Although it was nice to have an acceptance w/o revisions, I felt that the reviewers did not give a thorough read as I failed to believe that there was not one thing worth revising.
9.9
weeks
42.4
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2019
Motivation:
65.3
weeks
65.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Only after several reminders did the journal realise that their handling editor had resigned. The new editor provided no comments to the final decision, even though the reviews were mixed. One of the reviews was insightful and provided valuable comments, the other reviewer had critique that was not really relevant to the paper.
19.4
weeks
19.4
weeks
n/a 1 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
21.7
weeks
30.4
weeks
n/a 1 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
17.4
weeks
26.0
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2012