Reviews for "Social Science Research"
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 |