Reviews for "Work, Employment and Society"

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
Work, Employment and Society 24.9
weeks		 24.9
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2020
Motivation: It seems that two of the referees did not possess very deep knowledge of the main theoretical literature, and one of the reviewers admitted he/she is neither sociologist nor philosopher. Furthermore, the comment about country selection is unfair: postdoc projects work like this. To get funding, you are supposed to find an interesting comparative case, and there are some reasons for this but for the topic of the manuscript it could have been anywhere. It is just that my project got funding to study these two particular countries.
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 31.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2019
Motivation: The review was rather poor in that many of the points were not inherent faults of the paper but rather issues that could have been addressed and revised, if given the appropriate time/space to do so. Thus the decision sounded more subjective rather than grounded on fair points.
Work, Employment and Society 12.1
weeks		 12.1
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 3
(good)		 Rejected 2019
Motivation:
We fruitlessly waited about 4 weeks between time referees concluded their reports and the editor Final decision. However, the Editor simply reported reviewers' reports without any personal evaluation of the paper. Reviewers' reports were quite short (one made by few lines)
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 61.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: I have submitted an article for a special issue. After almost two months, I have received desk rejection without any comments apart from a note that they were overwhelmed with the number of submissions.
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 11.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2017
Motivation: The decision to reject the manuscript related largely to the rather under-developed theoretical contribution within the field of the assessed content. The editor considered the empirical material as strong and to be commended. As there was little extension and development of existing sociological theories and concepts which is what would be needed to progress further through the WES review process, the editor recommended to submit the paper to a different journal.
Work, Employment and Society 20.0
weeks		 20.0
weeks		 n/a 3 2
(moderate)		 2
(moderate)		 Rejected 2015
Motivation: Received three half-page reviews which made clear that the reviewers did not like the manuscript, but were not particularly engaged or constructive.
Work, Employment and Society 14.1
weeks		 37.3
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014
Motivation: The second round took a bit too long
Work, Employment and Society 14.1
weeks		 36.3
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014
Work, Employment and Society n/a n/a 25.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Work, Employment and Society 8.7
weeks		 8.7
weeks		 n/a 3 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Rejected 2014
Work, Employment and Society 22.0
weeks		 46.7
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2013
Work, Employment and Society 4.3
weeks		 9.0
weeks		 n/a 3 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2013
Motivation: The review process was thorough and critical but constructive. It very much helped us to improve the manuscript. The handling editor was very clear about how to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the journal and fast in making decisions. Overall, a very positive experience.
Work, Employment and Society 13.0
weeks		 28.2
weeks		 n/a 3 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2011