Reviews for "Social Science Research"

Review this journal Show journal page
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 Science Research 19.0
weeks		 19.0
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2020
Motivation: The comments of the reviewers were rather general and mostly asked for a more comprehensive discussion of the contribution; however, the editors rejected
Social Science Research 16.6
weeks		 16.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected 2017
Social Science Research n/a n/a 9.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Social Science Research 38.1
weeks		 38.1
weeks		 n/a 2 0
(very bad)		 0
(very bad)		 Rejected 2017
Motivation: Journal held the manuscript for over 8 months. Did not respond to emails at the 5 month mark. The journal had only one review, which was positive, for months, then solicited a second review which was cursory. Editor rejected the paper for "methodological" reasons which were not specified. In fact, the paper was very strong methodologically.
Social Science Research 13.1
weeks		 13.1
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2018
Motivation: Acceptable time to first decision. One of the reviewers made a right methodological critique, but impossible to resolve in the context of the study. The other reviewer did not provide interesting critiques.
Social Science Research 12.4
weeks		 12.4
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected 2017
Motivation: We suggested three reviewers upon submission of the manuscript and I think it's safe to say that the two reviews we received were from two of the reviewers we suggested.
Social Science Research 21.6
weeks		 21.6
weeks		 n/a 2 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected 2017
Motivation: Reviewers did not seem very competent and reviews were useless. Waste of time.
Social Science Research 22.7
weeks		 22.7
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2017
Motivation: Unfortunately, one out of two reviewers did not understand the empirical approach at all (fixed effects). However, helpful comments regarding the theoretical framework were given by the editor.
Social Science Research 15.3
weeks		 36.7
weeks		 n/a 2 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2015
Motivation: The handling of the manuscript was highly standardized with almost no communication from the editor (as you would expect at such a large journal). One reviewer did a good job, the other not but was muted by the editor during the process.
Social Science Research 23.9
weeks		 23.9
weeks		 n/a 1 1
(bad)		 1
(bad)		 Rejected 2015
Social Science Research 28.3
weeks		 37.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2015
Social Science Research 18.9
weeks		 28.6
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2015
Motivation: No clear reason for rejection was provided.
Social Science Research 14.1
weeks		 26.6
weeks		 n/a 1 4
(very good)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected 2015
Motivation: During the review process, the editor changed. The first editor was quite enthusiastic about the paper (revise and resubmit). But the new editor not so much (reject in the second round).
"Not liking the paper" is a fair judgement, but it should not be changed during the review process...
Social Science Research 4.3
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014