Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
9.6 weeks
14.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Prompt and fair review process all around. Would submit here again.
17.9 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2021
Motivation: Given the breadth of the document (literature review), the handling time was good. We received three comprehensive and fair reviews in the first round, and two reviews with minor changes in the second round. Communication with editor and production team was very good. The online Editorial Manager systems still feels a bit clunky; however, it has already been improved since our last submission.
13.7 weeks
26.6 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2022
Motivation: Our experience with the journal was quite positive. Everyone from the editorial office to the reviewers was quite good. We could not submit the manuscript on time during the first round of revision, and editors were quite ok in providing us additional time as the article required significant revisions.

Reviewers critiqued the paper in a way that we never felt bad about, and it was always done to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2020
7.4 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2020
26.4 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
0
Rejected
2021
Motivation: No response from editors when asked about exceptionally long review time, rejection based on one (very late) negative review.
n/a
n/a
21 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2021
Motivation: They claimed they only commission short articles, rather than accept unsolicited submissions. Despite the danger of cronyism and nepotism this creates, it did not say this as far as we could tell on the author instructions. They have quite a cavalier attitude to the time of others. No other reasons for given for rejecting the paper without it going to review.
10.9 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2020
Motivation: Very good editorial process
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: Submitted to the 'Social Epidemiology' section of the journal. Fast response was appreciated as they did not waste much of my time.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
5.7 weeks
12.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
Motivation: I had an excellent review process- the comments from the reviewers were fair and improved my paper to a large extent. The editor was also very clear and generous with the R&R dates, giving me ample opportunity to respond and make the necessary changes.

The process from acceptance to publication was also great, allowing me to edit and amend the text whilst proofing and typesetting.
3.9 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: Very speedy in comparison with other journals I've submitted to in terms of turnaround between submission and receiving reviews. Ample time given to revise according to comments, and peer reviews were of high quality. Would recommend.
n/a
n/a
6 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
9.4 weeks
12.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2019
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: "too descriptive"
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2018
Motivation: Editor rejected manuscript suggesting existing evidence was provided elsewhere. When asked to suggest the articles that provided that evidence the editor couldn't mention any. Overall, poor editing work.
10.9 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: I am very happy with the review process and thankful for the immense effort put into the manuscript by the reviewers and Editor. I particularly thank the Editor for being helpful and encouraging, this makes a great difference for young researchers. SS&M follows a rigorous review process and provides a platform for health researchers who are from interdisciplinary disciplines.
14.6 weeks
22.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
2016
4.0 weeks
8.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
5
Accepted
2015
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2011
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2016
7.7 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2014
Motivation: Overall the review process was very efficient and helpful. The editor also offered guidance on which were the most pressing points to address in the revision which was helpful.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
Motivation: Quick decision, however the reason for rejection is still not clear to me; they stated that my paper was "primarily exploratory".
6.1 weeks
6.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
3
Rejected
2016
Motivation: one reviewer was unnecerily harsh and rejected, two others were supportive
n/a
n/a
8 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2015
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation: I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
5.0 weeks
16.0 weeks
n/a
4 reports
4
3
Accepted
2013
Motivation: The process started very well and quick. However, after the first round the remaining referee came up with questionable accusations of scientific dishonesty. I feel that the editor could have cut the process short after the first round of revisions. That would have saved 3 months of nonsense.
15.2 weeks
21.2 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
Motivation: I was told by an editor that SSM has a very high rate of desk rejects (and I have been on the harsh end of this in the past), but as our piece was sent out I was very impressed by the efficiency of the process. Reviews were helpful and appropriate (although almost inevitably after 7 reviews some were starting to contradict each other). The paper was improved by the process and I will gladly publish with them again.
n/a
n/a
42 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014
Motivation: After waiting for almost six weeks, I got a response from the editor that the paper had been rejected before external review, because the paper would be more appropriate for a public health journal. This reason still doesn't make much sense to me because I had always thought that public health was pone of the areas covered by Social Science and Medicine.
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013
21.7 weeks
46.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2012
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
n/a
n/a
14 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2012
Motivation: The article was assigned to an editor, who stated that it was not of interest to the journal. The submitted paper was a mortality study based on workplace conditions, but the editor to which the article was assigned has only published in the field of post-colonial literature analysis. It was difficult to understand why that individual was an editor at this journal.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2013