| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Journal |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Academy of Management Review |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
1 |
2022 |
12/08 |
| Acta Sociologica |
Pending |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2021 |
10/15 |
| Acta Sociologica |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
4 |
Overall, a very good experience. Reviewer comments improved the paper. Would submit there again. |
2015 |
11/21 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Pending |
7 |
6 |
3 |
High quality reviews and communicative staff. Just takes a long time. |
2012 |
09/24 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Pending |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
R&R with insightful, detailed, difficult-but-doable reviews. |
2013 |
10/29 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
4 |
Good experience. got an R and R and three very detailed and constructive reviews. New editors still don't provide a roadmap, though, they just say to follow reviewers. Second round was the same three reviewers. Accepted after that and moved to proofing sooner than expected. |
2017 |
04/28 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
5 |
This was a much better experience than we expected given the journal's reputation. New editors are great. Reviews were detailed, specific, and thorough and definitely improved the paper. Really quite good. |
2017 |
04/20 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick decision. Three thoughtful reviews. |
2016 |
06/30 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
4 |
2 reviewers from outside sub field,n1 perhaps from outside discipline. They didn't understand the paper, but the other 2 did. |
2014 |
04/20 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
5 |
BUNCH OF PREPS AND EMOS REJECTED BY MOSHNOGRAPHY |
2020 |
03/12 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
High quality comments, doable reviews but reject.. |
2017 |
06/09 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Comments were mostly superficial (add some citatations, reframe the intro slightly) but full reject..so it goes |
2016 |
07/29 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Comments were helpful, and the revisions recommended were reasonable and do-able, so surprised at the rejection |
2016 |
04/18 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
6 |
5 |
First round of reviews made a number of inane suggestions. Second round took forever to basically say "this shouldn't be in AJS." Very unpleasant experience. |
2020 |
06/23 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Overall good experience. Three decent reviews, although questionable expertise on the subject. Unhelpful editorial rejection. Surprisingly fast compared to what seems to be the modal experience. |
2020 |
05/14 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
08/25 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
7 |
4 |
|
2015 |
03/08 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
7 |
7 |
3 |
Long time to hear back from reviewers. However, journal staff was responsive. 2 reviews were short but constructive, 1 review was bitter and unhelpful |
2013 |
05/31 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
9 |
11 |
3 |
|
2014 |
08/14 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Disappointing experience; didn't wait for 3rd review, reviews were short and seemed to follow a cursory read. |
2017 |
09/29 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
3 |
Three reviews by non-experts who commented almost entirely on the exposition. Nothing to really improve. All in all, a complete waste of time. Sociology cannot consider itself a serious discipline when one of its alleged top journals takes almost a year to review articles (yes, articles--plural--because this, I am finding, is not unsual for the AJS), provides reviews from non-experts, and rejects becuase the article doesn't have broad appeal, which in some cases (including, I belive, this one) is editor code for, "It doesn't have broad appeal TO ME," or, "You're not from an elite institution, so you're not welcome here." Recent research shows that manuscripts coming from elite insitutions are favored, all else being equal. Just look at some of the published articles in our top journals that supposedly DO have broad appeal. A cursory glance will expose the "broad appeal" review criterion as utter tripe. We need to do three things to improve publishing in sociology: (a) have a |
2017 |
02/12 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
07/18 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
One review was okay; two others were arrogant and self-referential, their comments made it clear they only read parts of the paper. Editor didn't add any insight and clearly didn't read the paper herself. This was a useless process. It is the last time I submit to AJS. |
2020 |
11/29 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviews a mixture of insightful/helpful theoretical points and slightly sophomoric methodological critique. |
2013 |
10/24 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
8 |
8 |
2 |
|
2013 |
11/13 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
8 |
5 |
2 |
Rejected after 2nd round R&R. The reviewers were biased and guarding their turf. It's difficult to publish truly ground-breaking work here, and getting more difficult to find competent reviewers. This paper will get published elsewhere, but AJS's role in the field as a leading journal will only continue to decline as ever fewer high-quality papers are submitted here. |
2018 |
03/04 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
Despite the reject, I'm content with my experience at AJS. It took 7 months, but everyone should know by now that AJS has a very long wait time. Regardless, I received 3 positive reviews with very helpful feedback. The editor did not provide a reason for the reject. |
2020 |
06/03 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Got desk rejected |
2021 |
08/09 |
| American Journal Of Sociology |
Desk Reject |
9 |
N/A |
3 |
Three very positive reviews followed by a Cardinal Abbott desk reject with no good reaosns or justifications why. Makes me question why it was sent out for a 9 month review in the first place. |
2014 |
12/01 |
| American Sociological Review |
Pending |
5 |
5 |
4 |
|
2020 |
07/16 |
| American Sociological Review |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
Robert Reece is a rapist and UT-Austin should fire him. |
2022 |
09/17 |
| American Sociological Review |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround on R&R; three very helpful reviews |
2014 |
05/31 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
0 |
7 referees from start to finish |
2011 |
10/24 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Received three quality first-round reviews in just 6 weeks. An editor also read the paper and provided extensive comments. Conditionally accepted after two months with the same three reviewers. From submission to acceptance in less time than some journals take to assign reviewers. The ND team has my full endorsement. |
2015 |
07/27 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
4 |
the comments were both positive and also very critical and not easy to address. Editors were very hands-on and helpful. Great experience at the end. Much better experience than AJS both in terms of editors' involvement and also turnaround. |
2017 |
01/07 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
11/19 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|
2021 |
07/06 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 positive initial reviews, 1 new reviewer on R&R. 1 R&R before conditional accept. |
2015 |
04/08 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
1 |
3 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
07/11 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
5 |
I received two R&Rs before the conditional acceptance. Reviews were always delivered after about three months. Without exception, all of the reviews were helpful. My only reservation about the process was that the editor gave a second R&R when all but one of the reviewers accepted the article unconditionally. But overall, great experience. |
2012 |
02/05 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
5 |
Extensive editor + reviewer comments. One reviewer not helpful (editor neglected), rest of reviewers extremely helpful. Took a lot of effort revising the paper, but was worth it, improved a lot. |
2017 |
11/01 |
| American Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
5 |
6 reviewers total (it wouldn't let me go higher than 5) |
2013 |
12/18 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
5 |
5 reviewers. None suggested fatal flaws. What's the point? |
2012 |
07/18 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2017 |
12/27 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Less than 5 week turnaround, thorough and thoughtful comments, can't complain! |
2018 |
08/17 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2014 |
11/06 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One comment was not helpful and appeared reader skimmed while the other was quite substantive and offered some great feedback that I will use to approach another journal with |
2015 |
07/24 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very encouraging and helpful reviewer comments, somewhat snarky editor comments. Like most articles rejected from soc journals, mostly issues of framing, some of it warranted. On the whole pretty positive experience, though the tone of the editor versus reviewers was strange indeed. |
2019 |
09/30 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fast process. Detailed reviews by experts of the field. Several comments on how to improve the paper. Overall, a good experience. |
2019 |
12/17 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected with mixed reviews. |
2013 |
03/07 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Seemingly mixed reviews. The Editor(s) primarily relied on an extremely vague comment about framing and lack of broad sociological interest to reject the paper. |
2015 |
11/30 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
3 referee reports and a 4th review from editiorial board. Reviews were useful and editor's decision was constructive. |
2016 |
09/12 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Two of the referees were pretty thorough and thoughtful. One was pretty positive, one wanted signifanct additional data collection. The third seemed like they read a different paper. |
2018 |
03/30 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Very quick. Helpful reviews and Editor decision indicated they had considered the article independently of the reviewer reports |
2017 |
11/29 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
referee reports all over the place and not coherent; no wonder it is difficult to make progress and publish important work that challenges different sub-fields; will not be submitting here again under these editors. |
2018 |
03/24 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall, a good experience. Fast. Helpful. |
2019 |
05/11 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very efficient process, high-quality reviews |
2015 |
12/01 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Editor Lizardo is unqualified and unethical. He'll publish narrow scholarship from his buddies or lame ideological fluff pieces, but if he does not like your paper because he doesn't like you, looks down on your institution, or is biased against your area, he will hunt for a critical review until he gets it, usually from a hand-selected minion who he knows will trash it. Learned from Kalleberg at Social Forces, I guess. Unless you do pseudo-scientific social justice "research" or you are pals with this particular editor, move on. Sociology and the ASA have changed for the worse over the last few decades, and so have its journals. It's a cult and social club for SJW types. Time to move on to more serious journals and professional associations. |
2017 |
01/26 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
One comment was not helpful and appeared reader skimmed while the other was quite substantive and offered some great feedback that I will use to approach another journal with |
2015 |
07/25 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Reviewers identified few substantive issues but focused mostly on "framing." Reasons for rejection were quite vague. Quick turnaround though. |
2018 |
06/28 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two of the three reviews were pretty short, but the turnaround was quick and the comments were helpful overall. |
2019 |
12/12 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Fast turn around, one reviewer was completely unqualified and said so in their review, openly wondering why they were asked to review it (!), two others had minor methodology quibbles, but were generally positive, fourth review was quite positive and constructive. Reviews read like a strong R&R and yet the editor decided to reject. Seems arbitrary as to who gets an R&R, perhaps it IS arbitrary and due to very high submission volume? |
2018 |
02/27 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful comments but rejected by Editors (not of broad enough appeal). Fair enough. |
2015 |
05/03 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were helpful and the editors' letter had some insights and suggestions; overall a positive experience. |
2014 |
01/06 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Rejected after about 5 weeks; some useful comments from editors. Mixed reviews, overall didn't like theoretical framing / overall contribution |
2015 |
02/02 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast turnaround, excellent reviews, not even mad. |
2017 |
08/02 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Two out of three reviews were very positive. Third was reasonable. Editors latched onto a couple comments about framing for a general audience and rejected, suggesting a specialty journal instead. |
2015 |
12/02 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
07/14 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
6 |
4 |
Rejected after strong R&R |
2012 |
05/09 |
| American Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very encouraging and helpful reviewer comments, somewhat snarky editor comments. Like most articles rejected from soc journals, mostly issues of framing, some of it warranted. On the whole pretty positive experience, though the tone of the editor versus reviewers was strange indeed. |
2019 |
09/30 |
| American Sociological Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Appreciate the very fast desk rejection |
2016 |
03/01 |
| American Sociological Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Very fast desk reject. Great process! |
2021 |
07/20 |
| American Sociological Review |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Helpful comments. Very fast. |
2019 |
01/28 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2021 |
05/21 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Pending |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Very helpful and detailed comments. 3 stages of R&R but time waiting in between was never more than 3 months. However, it appears the journal shuts down over the summer. Had to wait 6 months to shift from conditional to final acceptance! |
2014 |
05/03 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Pending |
10 |
10 |
3 |
Decent reviewer comments, but 10 months for an initial review is quite harmful for an Ast Prof. Been 5 months since R&R was resubmitted. |
2015 |
09/08 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience. Really helpful reviews, and, importantly, extremely detailed and constructive comments from the editor. |
2018 |
10/12 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
7 |
3 |
3 |
The time to first Response was too long in my opinion. 7 Months. 2/3 reviewers positive, one demanded a R&R. Comments were fair though - forced us to rewrite extensively, changing arguments and hypotheses and design. Overall, the newly submitted paper was much stronger, but the entire experience was exhausting. If not in a hurry, I'd be happy to submit further articles. |
2019 |
02/10 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Very constructive reviews, asking for substantive changes (but doable). And quick acceptance once the revisions were submitted. |
2020 |
12/09 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
5 |
Very good experience with both editors and referees |
2018 |
04/19 |
| British Journal Of Sociology |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2021 |
09/16 |
| British Journal Of Sociology Of Education |
Ref Reject |
4 |
3 |
3 |
A really bad experience. I submitted the article and received one single and irrelevant comment after 4 months. In a second round I received again one single irrelevant comment. Then, in a third round I received another referee report with 3 irrelevant comments. Among them saying that the paper was not innovative because use a survey to test a theory. Decently, I won't submit there again. |
2019 |
12/05 |
| City & Community |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Not sending papers out for review until September |
2020 |
02/12 |
| City & Community |
Pending |
1 |
3 |
2 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
11/21 |
| City & Community |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
5 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| City & Community |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2021 |
10/16 |
| City & Community |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Positive experience. |
2019 |
01/28 |
| City & Community |
Ref Reject |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
I waited 10 months for mostly unhelpful reviews. I'm not entirely sure either reviewer read the entire manuscript. The journal was also really unresponsive during the 10 months I waited for reviews. |
2015 |
04/06 |
| City & Community |
Ref Reject |
11 |
11 |
2 |
Not helpful. One reviewer clearly didn't read the paper and the other didn't really provide useful comments. Won't submit again anytime soon. |
2016 |
06/26 |
| Crime & Delinquency |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Only 1 reviewer but lot of comments. From R&R to conditional accept almost 2 months. Conditional accept to accept was 2 weeks. |
2019 |
01/07 |
| Crime & Delinquency |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Only 1 reviewer but lot of comments. From R&R to conditional accept almost 2 months. Conditional accept to accept was 2 weeks. |
2019 |
01/07 |
| Crime & Delinquency |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very fast turnaround. I got an R&R after a month with one, very thorough review. Then got accepted a month after I resubmitted with a second, very cursory review. |
2017 |
10/13 |
| Crime & Delinquency |
Accepted |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
Accepted as is |
2015 |
10/13 |
| Crime & Delinquency |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
2017 |
10/13 |
| Criminology |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
09/16 |
| Criminology |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2021 |
10/15 |
| Criminology |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
5 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| Criminology |
Accepted |
2 |
4 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2019 |
07/11 |
| Criminology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
The reviews were fine/typical. The editor wrote a letter explaining the reasons for reject which I appreciated. |
2020 |
09/10 |
| Cultural Sociology |
Accepted |
3 |
6 |
2 |
|
2018 |
08/30 |
| Current Sociology |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
very quick. reviewer comments not all that good, but the R&R was doable. |
2016 |
02/28 |
| Current Sociology |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
Overall helpful reviews and supportive comments from editor. |
2017 |
11/22 |
| Current Sociology |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
4 |
Very mixed reports leading editor to request fourth review. The editors were helpful, but did have to be chased for information. Referees provided some useful and interesting comments, but ranged from publish with minor amendments to suggestion that I go back to the library. |
2016 |
09/01 |
| Current Sociology |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The editor argued that the scope of the article was narrow. I agree on that but 3 years ago the journal published a highly related (and cited even in the cover letter) article. |
2020 |
11/25 |
| Demography |
Pending |
1 |
1 |
2 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2020 |
12/07 |
| Demography |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Took four months for the first response as R3 was late. I contacted the editor and he soon made the R&R decision upon the two received comments (both R&R). Both comments were high quality. |
2020 |
11/14 |
| Demography |
Pending |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
Too slow to get a first round review. Still waiting |
2022 |
01/12 |
| Demography |
Pending |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2021 |
10/15 |
| Demography |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
5 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| Demography |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
2 |
Got accepted after the first round R&R. It took only a month to be accepted after the revised version was submitted |
2020 |
08/30 |
| Demography |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
4 |
new editors took over right after 2nd R&R submitted; 102 days between 2nd R&R submission and acceptance |
2015 |
08/13 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
03/23 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2020 |
03/23 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very consistent and high quality reviewers. One positive and two negative reviews. I'd submit again. |
2016 |
02/20 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
The reviews and decision were late according to the journal's own timeline. Surprisingly, the referees' review were low quality and thus not particularly helpful. |
2016 |
03/01 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were a mixed bag in terms of quality. Surprised it took 4 months for only two reports. |
2016 |
04/04 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two reviews were good; one review was bad |
2015 |
06/29 |
| Demography |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2015 |
03/06 |
| Demography |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
desk rej after 5 days, quick |
2017 |
05/31 |
| Demography |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected within a week and the editor provided explanations that are specific to the paper! Good experience though the result is sad! |
2020 |
07/13 |
| Deviant Behavior |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Conditionally accepted after < 1 month. Weirdly formatted, poorly constructed review |
2016 |
10/13 |
| Deviant Behavior |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
1 |
okay, not slow |
2020 |
01/18 |
| Deviant Behavior |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
I liked a quick decision. Two reasonable comments.. but a rejection always hurts |
2016 |
12/19 |
| Deviant Behavior |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
1 |
1 reviewer, less than 200 words comment. lol |
2016 |
11/24 |
| Economy And Society |
Accepted |
7 |
10 |
3 |
2 very useful reports, 1 less than 100 words. Overall good experience but the pace is too slow |
2015 |
03/26 |
| Economy And Society |
Accepted |
11 |
6 |
3 |
long time. happy it's finally in |
2018 |
06/04 |
| Economy And Society |
Desk Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Terrible experience. Really odd submission process (had to send hard copies to England through snail mail). Reviewer comments were all over the place and inconsistent. |
2016 |
08/23 |
| Environmental Sociology |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Quick. Very helpful and fair feviews. |
2018 |
08/22 |
| Environmental Sociology |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Great Experience. Fast and fair. |
2015 |
11/30 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Pending |
5 |
2 |
2 |
|
2016 |
07/11 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
super fast with initial review of R&R |
2021 |
10/08 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Pending |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Conditional accept, only 2 reviewers. |
2015 |
11/19 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Accepted |
13 |
12 |
3 |
The editor is my friend |
2021 |
10/10 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
1 |
Only 1 reviewer? |
2019 |
09/09 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Two very detailed and helpful reviews. Great experience overall |
2015 |
01/29 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast turnaround. 2 reviews that were constructive even though both recommended reject. |
2018 |
03/28 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Ref Reject |
0 |
3 |
2 |
Good experience. Review took about 2 months. Reviews will improve paper. |
2017 |
08/09 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor took nearly 7 weeks to view submission. Desk rejection then with no reason given. Disappointing experience. |
2016 |
05/19 |
| Ethnic And Racial Studies |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Took two weeks to tell us that they receive too many submissions to they are not considering papers for review. Waste of time. |
2021 |
06/29 |
| Ethnography |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Helpful reviews and faster than expected |
2017 |
07/15 |
| Ethnography |
Accepted |
9 |
1 |
2 |
Slow initial review, quick review of R&R |
2021 |
08/01 |
| Ethnography |
Accepted |
2 |
6 |
2 |
They are very nice to work with, but they are incredibly slow. It was three years from submission to publication, with only one round of R&R. The peer reviewers were great, though! Measuredly critical yet very helpful and encouraging feedback. |
2019 |
06/28 |
| Ethnography |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
02/14 |
| Ethnography |
Accepted |
7 |
2 |
2 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2021 |
07/11 |
| Ethnography |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
I sent the article in September 2013 and could not hear anything more than 5 months. The article was forgotten and has never been sent to the reviewers. They apologized for this and promised for a quick desicion. I waited for 3 months more and again there was nothing. I withdrew my submission. This was a terrible experience! |
2013 |
09/20 |
| Ethnography |
Desk Reject |
11 |
N/A |
2 |
Overall helpful comments, but 11 months is way too long! |
2017 |
09/11 |
| European Societies |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Unfortunately, this was a rather bad review experience. The reviews were not constructive at all. Some of the comments were simply wrong. |
2018 |
07/02 |
| European Sociological Review |
Accepted |
9 |
5 |
2 |
|
2011 |
06/01 |
| European Sociological Review |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
4 |
good R&R comments, all good! |
2017 |
04/27 |
| European Sociological Review |
Accepted |
9 |
2 |
2 |
The first round was very lengthy but after the first R&R, the revision/reviewing process went really fast. |
2013 |
09/12 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Very food and thoughtful comments, but just too major for a R&R. |
2015 |
05/03 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
4 |
Reject after reviews (5 months). Doable reviews (whilst one reviewer was somewhat unfair). Rejected because not in the scope of the journal; why no desk reject if that's the case? |
2016 |
11/01 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
1 helpful and 1 semi-helpful referee report; third referee seems offended because we did not cite him |
2017 |
10/24 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Very detailed, helpful, and constructive feedback |
2018 |
07/01 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Received confirmation email immediately after submitting. Next contact was decision letter, 6 months later. Despite rejection, the refs all gave helpful, extensive feedback. However, as a junior scholar, I won't submit there again due to the long turnaround time. |
2014 |
06/02 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
0 |
Two ref reports, one good (probably revise), one not so good (probably reject). It took 3 months from reports were in before the editor made her decision. Due to the slow process my advice is to avoid ESR under the current regime. |
2012 |
05/18 |
| European Sociological Review |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Amazingly fast review and high-quality reviews. Although reviewers did not strongly argue rejection, this journal has a high rejection rate. It is reasonable. |
2020 |
11/04 |
| Gender & Society |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
R&R received extensive, useful reviews. |
2015 |
11/19 |
| Gender & Society |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
11/10 |
| Gender & Society |
Accepted |
6 |
2 |
3 |
2 months between submission and R&R, then 1 month between resubmission and conditional accept |
2015 |
10/14 |
| Gender & Society |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2021 |
09/16 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful reviews, 2 very positive, unhelpful editor letter |
2020 |
01/05 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2020 |
05/01 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful reviews, unhelpful editor letter |
2020 |
09/15 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Surprisingly fast for an early summer submission. Reviewers were very focused on contributions to gender theory. Only took a week after rejection to start getting invites to review completely unrelated papers for them... |
2015 |
09/07 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
3 |
2 |
5 |
Initial submission received R&R (with one saying it was fit to be accepted straight-away. The second review was a very constructive criticism, the last less so. Revision got sent back to the least enthusiastic who spent over a page critiquing standard methodological practices - as per G&S - stating blatantly false things about how things in my methodological areas are supposed to be done. Second reviewer said revisions had been well done but could make article stronger by a few more things. First review on the revision was both highly negative and completely off base, and was cited by the editor. |
2017 |
03/28 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Initial submission got R&R with very mixed reviews (four total). Revised submission rejected, seemingly based on 1 review that was clearly a hack job. Was shocked that the editor relied on such an ideological review |
2017 |
02/26 |
| Gender & Society |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
All four reviewers provided very constructive (and do-able) feedback. The decision letter from the editor was not helpful and seemed to draw very little from the four reviews. |
2020 |
05/24 |
| Gender & Society |
Desk Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Pretty dismissive feedback, not very helpful considering it sat with the editor. |
2020 |
12/16 |
| Gender & Society |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject due to article on gender gap in attitudes not being about gender gap. Wonder how they keep the acceptance rate low. |
2020 |
09/17 |
| Gender & Society |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Article about violence against women rejected because not about "gender theory" |
2015 |
11/15 |
| Health, Risk, and Society |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
A bit ridiculous. Editors were non responsive to requests on status at month 5 and 7. 2 reviews, one favorable the other extremely detailed. |
2016 |
01/30 |
| Human Relations |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Quite a few rounds but we got there in the end. Appears to be a very well run journal. Quick and thorough. |
2018 |
05/07 |
| Human Relations |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected within 48 hours with a request to resubmit along with a table comparing my choice of independent variables to every other paper ever published using the same major public use dataset (100+ papers). Decided to simply move on... |
2017 |
09/11 |
| International Journal Of Comparative Sociology |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Submitted here before and the review time tends to be 3 months with very quick turnaround time for r&rs. Editor David Smith is very helpful. |
2014 |
05/24 |
| International Journal Of Comparative Sociology |
Ref Reject |
10 |
3 |
3 |
Used a panel model I don't think reviewers understood, raked me over the coals for it. Published later in econ journal. |
2010 |
05/19 |
| International Journal of Social Research Methodology |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
About 4 weeks to desk reject for being too specific, explained in two sentences. |
2017 |
05/26 |
| International Migration Review |
Accepted |
6 |
4 |
3 |
three reviewers in the first round of R&R. but only one in the second round and this reviewer recommended publication. then the editor line-edited the paper twice until it's published. very responsible editor and relatively fast responses! very positive experience! |
2020 |
08/31 |
| International Migration Review |
Accepted |
7 |
4 |
5 |
It took two full years from submission to acceptance, but it was a highly rewarding experience. Reviewers asked me twice to dramatically revise the manuscript, which I did. Then Editor line-edited it twice with very helpful and detailed comments. Highly recommend! |
2019 |
01/17 |
| International Migration Review |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Fast, reasonable review process. But they have a huge backlog of papers, so the article still hasn't appeared in an issue, meaning it doesn't appear in major databases and is less likely to get cited. |
2015 |
04/30 |
| International Migration Review |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
2017 |
06/29 |
| International Migration Review |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
Nit-picky reviewer comments that had nothing to do with the substance of the submission. All issues could easily have been resolved with an R&R and memo. Awaiting editor decision for almost three months. |
2021 |
12/08 |
| JHSB |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Excellent experience, all around. |
2015 |
08/31 |
| JHSB |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
2012 |
11/12 |
| JHSB |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Positive experience, all things considered. |
2015 |
04/18 |
| JHSB |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Three positive reviews and fast turnaround. Great experience. |
2019 |
02/11 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful comments from the reviewers. Editor's comments for rejection was a form letter. One referee suggested only minor revisions, but still a reject. |
2017 |
03/08 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Editors provided no feedback. 1 good review, 1 person did not read the paper. 1 was mediocre. Would not submit there again until new editors are in place. |
2019 |
06/21 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
4 months to get comments (with my prodding). one review was both thoughtful/helpful; other one was both harsh/useless |
2015 |
03/29 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
rejection on christmas, wow thank you! |
2019 |
12/27 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. |
2017 |
07/11 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
took 4 months for first reviews (with me sending email inquiries). Some useful reviews, others not, as usual |
2015 |
06/30 |
| JHSB |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
not useful comments, but fast turn-around. |
2016 |
07/14 |
| JHSB |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Submitted 12/9. Decision letter received 12/24. |
2019 |
12/24 |
| Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion |
Pending |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Thoughtful, detailed, and highly constructive reviews. Great guidance from the editor. Very reasonable turnaround. One of the most positive journal experiences I’ve had in a while. |
2016 |
03/30 |
| Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience |
2018 |
02/22 |
| Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
Reviews were not helpful. Only one was more than a phrase (three were not even a full sentence). They were not constructive and gave no advice on how to improve or change the paper. |
2019 |
03/28 |
| Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
paper got a desk reject because the journal publishes mostly quantitative papers. |
2016 |
03/09 |
| Journal Of Consumer Culture |
Ref Reject |
11 |
2 |
2 |
Took multiple emails over 11 months before any reviews. Told publication was recommended after revision. Did revision and then was rejected. Awful. Will never submit to again. |
2016 |
07/06 |
| Journal Of Contemporary Ethnography |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
They could not find suitable reviewers for the article during within 16 weeks time frame and I withdrew the article! |
2013 |
09/20 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Fast response! Highly recommended. Editor responded judiciously to unreasonable requests by reviewer. |
2018 |
09/19 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Very fast review times. Two constructive reviews, and new reviewers were not added during the process. Great experience. |
2020 |
08/27 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
2020 |
12/07 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Insightful and useful comments, clear publishing process. Quick decision after first round of R&R |
2020 |
08/21 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
very good experience! the editor has been very considerate |
2019 |
06/23 |
| Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast review. Decent comments, but rejected. Oh well. |
2019 |
08/15 |
| Journal Of Law And Society |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Both reviews where wildly off-base and unhelpful. Will avoid submitting here until new editors. |
2018 |
07/09 |
| Journal Of Marriage And The Family |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
3 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
11/10 |
| Journal Of Marriage And The Family |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
4 |
|
2017 |
05/24 |
| Journal Of Marriage And The Family |
Ref Reject |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Good turn around time. Received an R&R, editor was clear that the revision would be challenging. Revised, sent to one old and one new reviewer. Their comments seemed minor and easy to fix, but the paper was rejected b/c, the contribution was more incremental and they don't have a lot of space, so they prioritize papers that stand to make the most substantial advances in pushing the field forward. This fair; however, the contribution didn't change from the original to the revision - if that was the case, I would have preferred a desk reject. Overall, though, not a terrible experience. |
2019 |
12/12 |
| Law & Society Review |
Pending |
1 |
2 |
1 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2020 |
11/21 |
| Law & Society Review |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
3 |
|
2017 |
11/06 |
| Law & Society Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Received two reviews, one positive, one wildly off base. Off base review accused me of faking data. I responded to editors that reviewer was incorrect and offered my data. No response from editors after that. If you do quantitative work and are not a lawyer, avoid this place. I am never submitting or reviewing for them again until new editors. |
2017 |
04/11 |
| Law & Society Review |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
2 |
We received positive feedback from 3 reviewers in the first round. After submitting the R&R version we received a very supportive review saying "its a superb work", the second reviewer had mixed-feelings. Editors declined the paper with no explanation! |
2017 |
02/22 |
| Law & Society Review |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Mixed reviews. One Reviewer reviwed the wrong manuscript. Reviwer mentioned the wrong research questions, sections that did not exist, and quotes from text that were not in manuscript. Stock decision letter. |
2015 |
07/18 |
| Law & Society Review |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Three positive reports two of them explicitly suggesting minor revisions. The editors decided to reject saying the paper is better suited to a general sociology journal. I would prefer desk rejection to losing 6 months if the editors could ignore the reviews anyway. |
2019 |
04/13 |
| Mobilization |
Pending |
12 |
N/A |
0 |
still waiting for response, consulted the editor twice. Guess I might retract the article |
2017 |
02/13 |
| Mobilization |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Good reviews and the editor provided some guidance on revisions. Good experience overall. It might just be me but the website for submissions is not very user friendly. Had to email editor files and questions about manuscript status. |
2015 |
11/29 |
| Mobilization |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
2013 |
11/06 |
| Mobilization |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
1 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
12/07 |
| Mobilization |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Good experience. Overall, the reviews were helpful and the Editor suggested another journal to send the article. Would definitely send again. |
2017 |
09/03 |
| Nations And Nationalism |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 short but relevant reports. Would submit there again. |
2019 |
08/10 |
| Nations And Nationalism |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
One detailed and one very superficial review, not great after 7 months |
2015 |
01/29 |
| Poetics |
Pending |
3 |
1 |
3 |
I am waiting for the final round after minor revisions. I am highly satisfied with the process. The communication with the editor was fluid and the quality of the reviews were really high. One of the my best experiences. |
2019 |
02/06 |
| Poetics |
Pending |
5 |
1 |
4 |
Great experience. All reviewers provided great comments and it was obvious that they all read the paper very carefully. |
2020 |
04/05 |
| Poetics |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Good reviews. Offered helpful feedback that improved the paper. |
2016 |
02/08 |
| Poetics |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Very speedy; reviews were somewhat helpful, though R2 was definitely an R2. Altogether, a good experience, I would say. |
2021 |
10/23 |
| Poetics |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
All-around great experience. Fast turnaround, good reviews, straightforward editor advice. |
2016 |
04/20 |
| Poetics |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Received two constructive reviews in about two months, then the revised version was accepted a week after submission. Swiftest process I've ever experienced. |
2017 |
09/17 |
| Polish Sociological Review |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Just one-paragraph review without any critical remarks. I am totally amazed. |
2011 |
09/19 |
| Politics & Society |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2019 |
08/02 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Pending |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
It was 3.5 months from initial submission to response ("Encourage Revision"). All three reviews were useful, as were the editor's comments. Good experience so far. Will update with R&R experience. |
2016 |
03/14 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4.5 months for first response (R&R); 6-week turnaround after re-submission (accept with minor revisions); all three reviews were useful as were the editors comments; would submit again. |
2016 |
05/24 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Two recommended for R&R, editor rejected. These were some of the most inept reviews I've seen in a while. Disappointing overall |
2016 |
09/09 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
09/11 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Ref Reject |
6 |
7 |
4 |
Good comments, extremely long time to get a final response (exactly one year). Overall, disappointing experience. It shouldn't take that long. |
2016 |
11/03 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
4 |
Under review for four months. Three of four reviews were positive. Editor rejected paper because "the findingd don't seem sociologically surprising to me." |
2016 |
08/14 |
| Qualitative Sociology |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Not bad, waited about a month. They don't seem very friendly to health papers right now? |
2019 |
12/12 |
| Research in Social Stratification and Mobility |
Accepted |
7 |
1 |
2 |
Cursory, half-page reviews; Editor inconsistently responsive |
2018 |
11/22 |
| Research in Social Stratification and Mobility |
Ref Reject |
11 |
N/A |
2 |
Submitted in June 2018. Didn't get reviews until late April 2019. Absolutely the biggest waste of time in my career. The editor takes around 3 weeks to respond to inquires. After 6 months, I wrote to check on the status of the paper. Was told a decision would be made "soon". After 9 months, I wrote again to check on the paper and ask that it be given 30 days to make a decision or I would withdraw the paper. The editor replied "sorry" three weeks later. I wrote to the editor that I wanted the paper withdrawn unless they make an immediate decision. I got two reviews: one more positive though nit picky and the other more negative yet critiqued me for not doing things that I actually did multiple times in the paper yet they did not somehow notice. Very much a complete waste of time. |
2018 |
05/05 |
| Research in Social Stratification and Mobility |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The editor recommended us to withdrawl the paper saying it is more suitable in another journal, otherwise it was going to continue in the process (desk rejection or review). From my understanding, it was a desk-rejection-alike decision but unrelated to the quality of the manuscript. It was fast, responsable and encouraging. |
2020 |
10/06 |
| Review Of Religious Research |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
waiting for Godot still... |
2016 |
05/18 |
| Social Forces |
Pending |
11 |
N/A |
2 |
I am a reviewer, not the author. I got the manuscript two weeks after submission and turned it around in 4. Not sure how long the other reviewer took but the author didn't get a decision until 50 weeks after submission. I blame the editor for most of the delay even if reviewer 2 stalled. After two or three months of an unresponsive reviewer, you should assign someone else. If I were the author I would be pissed. |
2017 |
08/03 |
| Social Forces |
Pending |
6 |
N/A |
4 |
R&R with 4 reviews. The feedback was useful. Editor's note says he will send it to the three reviewers that asked for changes, but not the "conditional accept" reviewer upon resubmission. |
2014 |
11/21 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
MOSH MOSH MOSH MOSH MOSH MOSH MOSH MOSH |
2022 |
12/04 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
6 |
3 |
A good experience overall. First decision took 4 month with 3 reviews. After we turned in the review we received a conditional accept in about a month. |
2018 |
04/19 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
2020 |
06/22 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
The article had 3 reviewers, 1 very terse. The reviews were helpful and the requested changes were mostly reasonable. Overall a smooth and pleasant process. |
2016 |
03/08 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Good experience. Good reviewers. |
2014 |
09/25 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
5 |
4 |
I think I had an atypically long SF process. There was seven months between my 1st resubmission and the decision. Some of the reviews were good, others less so, but the editor seemed to synthesize them well. |
2016 |
10/12 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 rounds of reviews until conditional acceptance. Reviews were generally useful. |
2015 |
09/12 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
The article had 3 reviewers, 1 very terse. The reviews were helpful and the requested changes were mostly reasonable. Overall a smooth and pleasant process. |
2016 |
03/08 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
4 |
Very helpful and objective reviewers made reasonable and comprehensible suggestions. An A for the reviews and a B+ for overall speed. Very good experience overall. |
2013 |
11/21 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
3 |
The time between R&R and conditional acceptance could have been shorter, but generally a positive experience |
2015 |
12/01 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Happy with the turnaround and quality of feedback from reviewers. |
2015 |
03/05 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Useful reviews and clear guidance from the editor, one year total from initial submission to accept |
2017 |
11/13 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Quality reviews. Reasonable turnaround times. |
2015 |
11/11 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
5 |
3 |
4 |
Great, smooth experience. Demanding feedback from two reviewers. Constructive comments from the other two. Would submit again. |
2018 |
04/12 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
Good feedback from reviewers |
2013 |
11/11 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Accepted after two other unsuccessful attempts at Social Forces. Just do the best research you can do and something will stick eventually! |
2021 |
06/01 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
Good experience, helpful reviews, relatively quick 7 mos. to accept from initial submission, 1 R&R, 1 minor R&R in between |
2019 |
02/24 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Three long, insightful, and extremely constructive reviews on the initial submission. A fourth reviewer was brought in in the second round. Great experience. |
2018 |
12/30 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
2016 |
11/26 |
| Social Forces |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Great experience. Quality reviews that were clear and helpful. |
2014 |
11/12 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One reviewer was helpful. The other was not at all and was rather strange. |
2019 |
02/26 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
happy with the quality of reviews, can't complain about the turnaround either |
2019 |
07/29 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Two insightful reviewer reports! Good experience though it is a rejection. |
2020 |
07/03 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewers read article carefully. One reviewer was someone whose work I challenged. Editor decision based on referee reports exclusively |
2017 |
11/29 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
The decision was very fast. One of the reviews was brief but positive and helpful. The other two focused on issues that were directly addressed in the paper. I'm guessing they only briefly skimmed the paper and consequently missed where their concerns were addressed. All the reviews were too fast perhaps? |
2015 |
08/16 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Slow and low quality reviews. One reviewer wanted to see it advance. The other two were either non-experts or did not read the paper because their reviews were unintelligible |
2023 |
05/22 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
1 reviewer didn't read the paper, and the editor didn't notice. Otherwise a quality experience. |
2019 |
12/10 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Mixed reviews. It seems pretty consistent at SF: one negative review = rejection, with a very short and vague decision letter. |
2016 |
11/29 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
the reviews were terrible in quality. |
2015 |
07/24 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Terrible reviews. Inaccurate and unhelpful. |
2014 |
11/13 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Long decision. You could tell 2/3 reviewers did not read the paper very closely b/c they criticized us for stuff we didn’t do. Zero feedback from the editor. Will not submit to SF ever again. |
2017 |
11/15 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2015 |
01/28 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Decent quality reviews |
2018 |
08/28 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
5 |
3 |
3 |
|
2014 |
11/06 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick response from editor. |
2013 |
05/12 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
4 |
One review was very long and the reader obviously read my paper carefully - I didn't agree with everything but it was extremely useful. One review was rude, rushed, and irrelevant. The other two were short but somewhat useful. Overall satisfied with the process and will submit again to this journal. |
2019 |
04/15 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
quality and productive reviews. |
2019 |
02/22 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
2 out of 3 very positive reviews, 3rd review was nit-picky and also said that we made claims we did not. Editor went with negative reviewer. What's the point? |
2015 |
03/29 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2020 |
08/30 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
2 |
3 |
R&R with 2 reviews. Did everything reviewers said. R&R was sent out to 3 reviewers, 1 original and 2 new. 1 of the new reviewers didn't understand it was an R&R. Rejected from his review. |
2017 |
11/18 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Editor and reviewers unhelpful. Neither of the reviewers was a specialist on the topic. Overall a disappointing experience. |
2014 |
10/23 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2016 |
03/02 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
04/18 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Unhelpful reviews; all framing critiques; one review was one sentence |
2018 |
04/02 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
6 |
4 |
3 |
One horrible review (likely written by a non-specialist grad student) led to the rejection. Editor does not care about the qualities of reviews. |
2014 |
02/03 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Very general feedback. |
2021 |
03/19 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Very dissapointing. One referee gave expert and constructive comments, while the other was not a sociologist and had no knowledge of basic theoretical concepts or anything really. Referee rejected due to weaknesses identified by this reviewer. |
2017 |
02/13 |
| Social Forces |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
One good review, another irrelevant and useless |
2017 |
04/08 |
| Social Forces |
Desk Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
terrible experience. feedback was not useful and very brief. would never send manuscripts there ever again |
2013 |
11/22 |
| Social Indicators Research |
Accepted |
4 |
5 |
2 |
Quite easy reviews but very lengthy process. Kept emailing editor asking how minor corrections can take 5 months to get accepted... |
2016 |
02/13 |
| Social Indicators Research |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Very quick response, including a suitable alternative journal (which was very lowly ranked) |
2014 |
05/03 |
| Social Indicators Research |
Desk Reject |
1 |
1 |
0 |
The editor desk rejected my paper and kindly suggest to submit it to the Journal of Happiness Studies. It seems that they often overlap their topics and anything related to happiness or life satisfaction is redirected to JOHS. |
2019 |
02/06 |
| Social Justice Research |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Fast review. Reviewers made good contribution to improve the final paper. |
2019 |
02/06 |
| Social Justice Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
No explanation of reject from reviewer. |
2020 |
07/16 |
| Social Networks |
Accepted |
9 |
5 |
2 |
Long time to first decision (9 months), helpful reviewers, no editor comments. Another 5 months to acceptance. Doubt whether I will submit again, takes too long. |
2015 |
11/01 |
| Social Networks |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Really thorough reviewer comments and an overall formative process that definitely improved the paper. Communication with the editorial team excellent (and decisive) throughout. |
2015 |
02/05 |
| Social Networks |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
About 8 Months from First Submission in Late 2014 to Acceptance. Really great experience all together. Very very thorough/detailed reviews that were fair/constructive. The paper was definitely improved during the process. Assigned Co-Editor was swift at each stage. |
2014 |
02/18 |
| Social Networks |
Accepted |
9 |
3 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
09/16 |
| Social Networks |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Quick and professional handling by editors. High quality reviews. Manuscript was rejected but I would recommend submitting to this journal. |
2018 |
05/02 |
| Social Problems |
Pending |
2 |
4 |
0 |
a special issue has gone under full review. moving a bit slower than anticipated, but editor has been very prompt to respond to inquiries. |
2019 |
06/15 |
| Social Problems |
Pending |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
it took them almost 2 months to assign a managing editor. two "accept this now" reviews and one review with mixed feedback - some good, some crankiness. responsive staff. |
2016 |
02/28 |
| Social Problems |
Pending |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
7 months since submission and have not received any reviews. editorial board responds promptly, but am near the point of asking my manuscript be withdrawn. |
2019 |
09/14 |
| Social Problems |
Pending |
8 |
6 |
2 |
received R&R *eight* months after submitting. i was given 4 months to revise |
2019 |
01/20 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2021 |
10/16 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
3 |
4 |
5 |
thoughtful reviews, quick turnaround time on 1st round, editor offered pointed advise for revision |
2016 |
10/20 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
9 |
8 |
2 |
the outrageous time between rounds of reviews was made up for by 1) only one round of r&r and 2) amazing reviewers |
2017 |
11/08 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Faster turnaround times than previous experiences with the journal under different editorship. Great reviews, and same reviewers throughout the process. |
2019 |
07/04 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
8 |
8 |
2 |
coming up on the 2 yr anniversary of my initial submission. paper has been accepted and i have seen proofs of it. still not out. |
2019 |
03/01 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
Overall, a very positive experience working with them. The comments were extremely generative. Received conditional acceptance in a month after resubmitting. It took them a week to accept the paper after the second round of revisions. |
2019 |
07/06 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Received R&R in 3 months and conditional acceptance 3 months after I resubmitted. Some of the reviews were good but demanding (i.e. covering new literatures). Journal staff was responsive. Good experience overall. |
2014 |
04/05 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
4 |
Constructive feedback. Would submit there again. |
2020 |
07/09 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
7 |
6 |
3 |
|
2018 |
08/21 |
| Social Problems |
Accepted |
5 |
6 |
3 |
Process was generally smooth but took far too long; reviews somewhat constructive |
2015 |
09/29 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
Thoughtful comments and reasonable turnaround. I would submit here in the future. |
2015 |
08/12 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
8 months! Too long! 2 helpful reviewer reports, 1 useless. |
2015 |
04/06 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
Took four months for the editor to send the article out for review and another two months to make a decision once the reviews were received. The reviews were mostly unhelpful and of unusually low quality. Horrible experience. |
2015 |
03/29 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Two very positive reviews. The third had an ax to grind and wrote two sentences that didn't engage with any specifics of the manuscript. It should have been a red flag to the editor. I won't submit again under the current regime. |
2015 |
03/29 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
4 |
5 |
4 |
Submitted March 2015, 4 months for first reviews and was given R&R. Submitted again in Sept. 2015, took 6 months for reviews and was was rejected based on comments from new reviewer. |
2015 |
03/11 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2017 |
04/15 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
3 |
Waited almost 10 months for first round of reviews. Received 3 reviews - each was about a page long. One was critical and helpful, the other two were critical and insulting (not helpful at all). Can't believe it took almost 10 months to get 3 pages worth of reviews. I don't mind the reject, but seriously? |
2015 |
10/28 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Fast considering the typical. Reviewers thought the paper was good but rejected. Seems like the editor selects stuff they like! |
2021 |
11/05 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
3 |
2 reviews were positive and suggested minor revisions, 1 was negative. Paper was rejected. |
2015 |
11/05 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
Two helpful reviews that made paper better. One long rant where reviewer personally attacked me. Editor did not give reason for rejection. |
2020 |
08/12 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
3 |
Took over 9 months to get a refereed reject. What a waste of time. The reviews were good (though one reviewer was unnecessarily rude). Editor acknowledged how long the wait was in her letter, which goes to show that even the journal knows how unacceptable this is. Will not be submitting to them again. |
2017 |
04/15 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2012 |
07/18 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Good notes by the reviewers. All said versions of the same things, and offered me citations and ideas to strengthen the piece. Good experience, just not good enough paper. |
2015 |
07/29 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
4 |
3 |
5 |
Had to find 3 new reviewers on an R&R with a no 2nd R&R policy. In light of that, 2 of the 3 new reviews were fairly positive. The 3rd review was negative, but provided no substantive reason for the negativity and the review seemed like a person gripe rather than a review. I will probably not submit again under current editor. |
2015 |
03/14 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2020 |
02/24 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
3 neutral to negative reviews. Reviewers raised some valid points about the paper's limitations. |
2015 |
04/04 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Detailed comments. Two positive reviews, one much more negative/contradictory. Status changed to awaiting editor decision ~3 days before rejection. |
2022 |
12/01 |
| Social Problems |
Ref Reject |
9 |
N/A |
3 |
Horrible turnaround time for mediocre feedback. |
2015 |
03/23 |
| Social Problems |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Received an odd .pdf letter that contained more than one grammatical error. Apparently the second year UIC grad student who runs the editorial office didn't find my manuscript sufficiently innovative. Bummer. |
2014 |
11/26 |
| Social Problems |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
It took one month to desk reject the paper. The editor argued against the suitability of the paper for a general audience. Nevertheless, the paper was built on previous studies published in the same journal. |
2020 |
12/28 |
| Social Problems |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
rejected for fit with such vague comments that won't help me make any changes before sending it out again. |
2016 |
01/18 |
| Social Problems |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Good experience. Good feedback even on desk reject. Will submit again for sure. |
2015 |
09/11 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Really fast review. The new editorial team is doing a great job. The reviews really improved the quality of the paper. The editors also make useful comments and gave their our option about with reviews' comments were more important of addressing. Highly recommended. |
2020 |
12/01 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Thoughtful reviews, detailed feedback from editors, and all within 2 months. An all around great process. I wish all journals ran this smoothly. |
2017 |
02/15 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Accepted |
1 |
2 |
2 |
The editors here are fantastic. |
2017 |
07/31 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Three very critical and helpful reviews. Drastically improved the paper. Editors also pointed to the most important reviewer comments. Everything got turned around pretty quickly. Overall great experience. |
2021 |
08/16 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
4 |
Very quick editorial decision. Reviews were very helpful. Very effective process. I love it! |
2016 |
03/11 |
| Social Psychology Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
3 |
Extremely fast turn around. 15 days from submission to decision. Editors run a tight ship. |
2018 |
05/31 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Pending |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Actually, it was even less than a month. Brief, yet helpful reviews. |
2015 |
09/14 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
SSM-Population Health. Three critical but insightful reviews. |
2016 |
07/26 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Very fast turnaround with quality reviews |
2015 |
03/03 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
2019 |
11/10 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Superb experience. Way faster than traditional sociology journals. No feedback from editors though. |
2017 |
08/10 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
2019 |
11/10 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
2013 |
11/12 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Quick first decision w/ final decision one month after resubmission (n.b., overlapped with winter holidays). |
2013 |
11/10 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Editors not especially communicative, but a good experience overall. |
2014 |
11/26 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
4 |
Great experience - two and a half months from submission to acceptance and assignment to an issue. |
2014 |
04/12 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
2 |
The paper was sent out for review within a week. I received reviewers' comments after approximately 3.5 months. After I submitted the R&R, it took approximately 3 months until the acceptance. Reviewer comments were thoughtful and helpful in improving the paper. The publication process after acceptance went very quickly and paper was only within days after acceptance. |
2021 |
11/09 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
4 |
Quick turnaround time and thorough reviews. Editor runs a tight ship. |
2014 |
09/09 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
5 |
Helpful comments. One reviewer highly critical of submission but overruled by Section Editor after receiving additional reviewer reports. Word length was strictly enforced, making it challenging to address comments. |
2013 |
11/12 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
I might be just a lowly grad student, but I hope those working at this journal are genuinely embarrassed by the amount of time it took to deliver a rejection notice that I paid for the privilege to receive. In hindsight, I would have paid ten times as much for a desk reject, since the seven months of sidelining my work while I prepared for the job market was beyond the cumulative benefit of my meagre monthly RA stipend. I believed their apologies were genuine, but I would ask the journal staff to just do the discipline a favor and quickly reject work they think isn't worthy, especially given the journal has an acceptance-to-print timeline of over a year. I get rejected from lots of journals. The piece I submitted was good but not great. This journal has a special place in my bitter soul because it makes me not want to identify as a sociologist. |
2021 |
11/10 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Nonsense reports from referees. Editor just selects the 'reject'... Slow and bad experience overall. |
2020 |
08/22 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
|
2021 |
04/01 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
High quality reviews and very fast turn around |
2017 |
07/02 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Split between 1 positive and 1 negative comment.. All comments were useful though. |
2016 |
02/20 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
2 |
One of the reviewers seems to know nothing about statistics! S/he suggested rejection after the first round of R&R and the editor listened to her/him, though the other reviewer was satisfied with the revision. |
2019 |
05/14 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick desk rejection. But the editor(s) obviously didn't spend more than 3 mintutes reading our manuscripts, inaccurate reasons to reject. |
2017 |
06/03 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after 1 week. |
2014 |
11/12 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
12 days from first submission to desk reject. SS&M was a huge stretch for this paper, and I was not at all surprised w/ the decision. But still, I wish they had given a justification for the rejection. They just said the paper would be "better placed elsewhere" without explaining their reasoning for this |
2018 |
10/11 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk rejected after two days. The form letter said they are not interested in cross-sectional work. The thing is.. the paper is not cross-sectional. Confused. |
2016 |
03/03 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick! |
2015 |
06/29 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
I've submitted there about 3x. Each time I get a desk reject that says the paper is "cross-sectional" but in none of these circumstances has the paper been "cross-sectional". I think they just eyeball the abstract and author affiliations and give a weak reason to desk reject. |
2016 |
09/21 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Turn around was less than a month, which is ideal if it's going to be rejected. |
2019 |
12/12 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
It took only 3 days to get desk-rejected.......... |
2016 |
01/28 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Editor said that the paper was "descriptive", which was clearly not the case. |
2019 |
07/16 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Got desk rejection after 3 days, said paper was more exploratory than they publish. |
2016 |
11/28 |
| Social Science and Medicine |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
I got desk rejection decision within two days!!! Impressive! |
2016 |
03/02 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Pending |
10 |
N/A |
2 |
Terrible experienced. Submitted and paper went out for review. I checked in with them after 3 months, and they ignored my email. Again at 4 months (ignored). At 6 months I emailed and threatened to pull the article. They told me decision was coming very soon. Emailed again at 7 and 8 months (no response). At 9 months again threatened to pull the article, and they didn't respond so 10 days later I withdrew it. Waste of 10 months of my life. |
2016 |
10/08 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
1 |
Took a long time but was an easy publication. |
2021 |
07/20 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
6 |
6 |
1 |
Really slow process. Editors did not even answer email. We received only one review and it was of a really low quality. I will not to submit a paper to this journal again. |
2018 |
02/06 |
| Social Science Quarterly |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
1 |
Took forever but super easy revision. |
2021 |
07/07 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Decent reviews. |
2018 |
12/16 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Ok, normal speed. No complains. Only two reviewers though. |
2018 |
04/05 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
3 |
Fast turnaround. Initial review = 3 months, submitted R&R = 1 month, conditional accept = 1 month. |
2012 |
07/18 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Submitted paper to SSR 20 days before data collection was finished. Paper sent to similarly ideologically minded reviewers, accepted in less than 6 weeks. |
2011 |
10/29 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Short, generally agreeable reviews from 2 reviewers. Long response (5 months) on first round. Editor did a minor R&R and took 2 more months to accept. Not great feedback but its done. |
2018 |
12/10 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Long response time at first, but article was accepted after major revisions. Stoked! |
2019 |
11/20 |
| Social Science Research |
Accepted |
7 |
4 |
3 |
The review process is longer than what I expected. But review quality is pretty good. |
2018 |
06/10 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
One praising review with a minor revision request + someone who wished we wrote a different paper. |
2021 |
08/18 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Slow, and not very productive. No feedback from the editor, and two contradictory reviews that were quite short. One reviewer's critiques were fair and also seemed addressable. The second reviewer seemed to have only skimmed the paper, offering substantive critiques only on things that were discussed in the intro/conclusion while saying that we failed to address a number of issues that were discussed in some detail in our methods section. |
2016 |
03/06 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Awful experience. Reviewers basically asked me to produce a completely different paper, both from what I had originally written and from what one another wanted. Nevertheless, all reviewers came back happy at the end and the paper was still rejected, without any reason. Reviewer's only new comments were wording problems and a misunderstanding of how a variable was measured. Terrible experience. |
2016 |
02/09 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Two generally positive reviewers first round. Rejected after 1st R&R because of a new 3rd reviewer who is very vicious and reasonable. The other reviewer agreed for publication. |
2021 |
10/14 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
6 |
6 |
2 |
Dreadfully slow process and quite unhelpful comments. Would't submit there again under current regime. |
2014 |
09/16 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Fair decision and good comments. The process was speedy. I will submit here again. |
2019 |
01/25 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
I thought the reviews were quite reasonable and I could address most of the comments.... |
2016 |
04/04 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Reject after reviews, no editor comments. Two positive, one negative review. Editor went with the negative one. Agreed with the negative reviewer's comments, but it was fixable. High maintenance for not a top-tier journal. |
2015 |
11/01 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
1 |
4 months to get reviews from only one reviewer. Not sure if it was only sent out to one reviewer or more, but only one gave comments. Comments were good and will be useful for future submission. |
2014 |
10/02 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
2 |
fair critique and reasonable turnout. |
2021 |
10/06 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected by the editor after some fairly decent reviews that would have led to an R&R at most journals. |
2019 |
11/19 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
1 |
Editorial system sucks, one reviewer said "review in file" but it's nowhere to be found. The other review that does exist is postitive. Still a rejection due to the other reivew that doesn't really exist. |
2016 |
12/05 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Rejected but received helpful comments |
2017 |
05/31 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2013 |
11/06 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
2016 |
02/09 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were ok quality. Editor apparently chose the reviewers we suggested upon submission. |
2017 |
06/02 |
| Social Science Research |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were polar opposites. Negative reviewer advocated for measurement and modeling decisions that contradict literature and seemed not to know basic conventions. Positive reviewer gave some helpful suggestions, but also clearly did not know much about topic (which has been previously published in this journal). Editor didn't read paper and provided generic form letter. Editorial office was not responsive to inquiries about length of time. Wouldn't recommend-- length time not worth the mediocre reviews. |
2015 |
12/03 |
| Social Science Research |
Desk Reject |
7 |
N/A |
0 |
half an year desked. kidding me? |
2017 |
11/05 |
| Society |
Pending |
1 |
N/A |
2 |
Fast and doable reviews |
2023 |
05/22 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Accepted |
5 |
4 |
3 |
Good experience, helpful reviews. |
2018 |
09/02 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Very helpful and constructive suggestions, made my article much stronger. Would submit/publish with them again. |
2016 |
12/17 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
2 |
Took only 3 weeks to rejection. 3-case comparative paper but both referees were experts on one of the three countries and didn't comment on the other two cases. Reviews were so so at best but fast turnaround. |
2017 |
09/07 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
mostly helpful comments |
2020 |
06/04 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
horrible reports, shame on editor Bruno Amable |
2017 |
11/14 |
| Socio-Economic Review |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
07/20 |
| Sociological Forum |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast and fair. |
2017 |
06/20 |
| Sociological Forum |
Pending |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Helpful comments from three reviewers. Two very positive. Editor decided on a major revision. |
2016 |
07/13 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Such a great experience. Dr. Cerulo, the editor, was extremely helpful with indicating the very specific reviewer feedback that she wanted us to address in our revision. Overall, the reveiwer feedback was very thoughtful and help us produce a much better paper. |
2018 |
02/15 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Great experience. A responsible editor manages the review process very efficiently. |
2019 |
12/03 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Helpful reviews, helpful guidance from ed. |
2020 |
09/23 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Excellent experience, one R&R, then an accept. Quick and high quality reviews! |
2017 |
08/24 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Great experience. Great reviews and guidance by editor on interpreting them. Really happy with the whole process. |
2019 |
10/15 |
| Sociological Forum |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Excellent response time. Reviews were thorough and very helpful. Would submit again.certainly |
2016 |
06/18 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very positive experience! got supportive constructive feedback from the reviewers but unfortunately the Editor rejected... |
2018 |
05/10 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Response: "we accept less than 10% of the manuscripts we receive. Your work certainly has promise, but I have other pieces on my desk that are more developed and received more favorable reviews." |
2017 |
01/31 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall, a good experience. Reviewer comments will improve the paper. 10% acceptance rate. Ouch! |
2017 |
06/21 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Incredibly fast turn around. Reviews literally covered the spectrum. Reviewer 1 hated it; Reviewer 2 loved it and "looks forward to a book"; Reviewer 3 offered a balanced review with VERY helpful revisions. Came down to editor decision. |
2016 |
06/07 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Really fast turnaround with four very high quality reviews. Would definitely submit here again. |
2016 |
10/27 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
About a month and a week from submission to first decision. General feedback but good place to toss a paper out right now! |
2021 |
05/03 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
quick turnaround, relevant reviews, 2 positive and 1 mean/negative most probably the person we had listed as the reviewer that we did not want. Editor rejected without giving any reasoning. |
2017 |
11/29 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
My go-to regional journal --the process is fast, the reviews are helpful, and the editor is fair. |
2018 |
12/08 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Two positive and one slightly critical review, but with points that can all be addressed. Editor still rejected. No reason given. |
2020 |
11/17 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
3 |
General feedback. Off to the next journal! |
2021 |
03/19 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fast turnaround and very courteous communication from the journal. Two helpful reviews, one rather baffling one. |
2016 |
07/19 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Quick turnaround with very careful reviews. I would send here again. |
2016 |
05/01 |
| Sociological Forum |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Very fast turnaround but low quality reviews.. |
2016 |
03/01 |
| Sociological Inquiry |
Pending |
10 |
12 |
3 |
I submitted this almost 2 years ago, and all I've gotten is one round of reviews a year ago. |
2015 |
04/11 |
| Sociological Inquiry |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
4 |
Very good experience. 2 R & R's with about a month between submission and response. Three reviewers on first round. A fourth was added on the second round. Comments were all very helpful. Would submit again. |
2016 |
06/18 |
| Sociological Inquiry |
Ref Reject |
6 |
6 |
2 |
Editor sat on reviewer response to the R&R for 3-4 months before finally rejecting |
2018 |
03/21 |
| Sociological Inquiry |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2017 |
02/12 |
| Sociological Inquiry |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
4 |
|
2017 |
02/13 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Pending |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Easy R&R. Took about three months for first decision. |
2021 |
11/05 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Excellent experience. Reviewer comments were great and editor was helpful. |
2016 |
04/20 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
2 |
5 |
3 |
Really great experience. All 3 reviews were comprehensive and helpful, and the editor was clear about the direction I should pursue with the R&R. Two reviewers after the re-submission, and they responded quickly. And they've moved very quickly with copy-editing, preparing the proof, etc. for the online submission. Strongly recommend this journal to others. |
2016 |
04/21 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Overall good experience. 3 positive reviews, but one was basically incoherent. Editor didn't mind that we didn't respond to the incoherent reviewer. |
2013 |
05/08 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
The journal was extremely quick in 2019. They changed editors in late 2019 and it is slower than before, but overall still quick. Reviews were pretty general but reviews always vary. |
2020 |
06/15 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Quick review times, and very helpful reviewers. Editor clearly communicated the changes they would like to see. Great experience all around. |
2016 |
04/28 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Helpful reviewer comments, good experience! |
2018 |
04/17 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
Constructive reviews. Fast turn-around. |
2018 |
06/21 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
Horrible experience. The reviewers knew nothing about the topic and one of the reviews was literally 3 sentence-long. Seems a case where editors should have used more discretion to throw out useless reviews but instead they chose to reject the article. |
2016 |
07/09 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Ref Reject |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Quick turnaround. After R&R one reviewer said will want to see the paper in print, the other tanked the paper. Editors decided not to proceed. |
2018 |
11/27 |
| Sociological Perspectives |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
SLOW AS FUCK |
2018 |
03/05 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Pending |
9 |
N/A |
0 |
Still waiting to hear from them. They are not replying emails as well. AVOID! |
2019 |
03/30 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
very helpful and hand-on editors. useful reviews. overall, great experience |
2015 |
06/30 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
12 |
4 |
3 |
Good experience with the editors and reviewers but super slow. To be avoided while on a tenure clock. |
2018 |
12/30 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
Helpful comments from two reviewers and editors. Quick decision after the revision (2 weeks). |
2016 |
12/02 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
11 |
2 |
3 |
It took way too long for a first response... though all three reviewers were knowledgable/helpful. Accepted within two months of my response |
2018 |
01/10 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
10 |
5 |
3 |
Oof... 15 months hurt. Happy for the positive end result, but a frustrating experience overall. I think the journal is navigating some changes. |
2017 |
05/31 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
6 |
9 |
3 |
Snail |
2018 |
10/16 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Accepted |
7 |
5 |
3 |
|
2017 |
06/06 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
04/13 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
Very quick turn-around and thorough reviews. One review was decidedly mean-spirited and lazy, but the helpfulness of the other three reviews made up for that. |
2014 |
07/01 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2016 |
12/01 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
12 |
N/A |
2 |
After a year of waiting (and a few months after being promised a decision) I emailed them asking about the status. Within ten minutes they sent a rejection with two reviews that clearly voted reject. So, they were just sitting on the paper. The journal itself is decent, but I would definitely avoid under the current editors. There's no excuse for behavior like that. |
2016 |
08/01 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
1 |
1 |
3 |
Very quick turnaround. Was "Under Review" the next day! |
2021 |
03/19 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
3 |
One very helpful review, other two weren't too bad. Took way to long to send for review. |
2016 |
04/04 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
One universally positive review and two more negative ones. The outcome was disappointing but reasonable given the two negative reviews. What I'm unhappy about is the 6 month review time, which included two months of waiting for the editor to make a decision on finished reviews. Seems like that shouldn't happen. |
2018 |
12/15 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2014 |
11/22 |
| Sociological Quarterly |
Ref Reject |
20 |
N/A |
2 |
The height of unprofessional behavior.The editors are holding careers hostage. Avoid. |
2017 |
02/12 |
| Sociological Review |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
5 |
Awesome experience. Comments were exhaustive and made the paper very strong. Will definitely submit again. |
2016 |
11/21 |
| Sociological Review |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
The editor desk rejected my paper. Althought it took one month, his arguent was reasonable. The paper was not framed for a general audience as it is expected for this journal. He was really respectful and gave short comment to help with a broader framing. |
2020 |
12/10 |
| Sociological Science |
Pending |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
day 35 and counting. not 30 days as promies |
2022 |
09/20 |
| Sociological Science |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Superb experience. Way faster than traditional sociology journals. No feedback from editors though. |
2017 |
08/10 |
| Sociological Science |
Accepted |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Paper accepted within 24 days with two sets of minor comments. Note: this paper was rejected at ASR and one other place so it was pretty extensively vetted before SS. |
2017 |
11/16 |
| Sociological Science |
Accepted |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Got acceptance in exactly 3 weeks after submission. Contrary to views that SS is a dumping ground for elites, I doubt many here would consider me "elite" based on pedigree, output, and current department. |
2016 |
10/03 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
1 |
really fast review with very unhelpful comments. |
2013 |
11/13 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
1 |
Very impressed with the turnaround time. The review was higher than average quality compared to what the paper got in major "mainstream" journals. Will absolutely submit again. |
2014 |
11/23 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
These were the most helpful comments. Puts my dissertation committee to shame. I am seriously considering submitting chapter drafts just for the feedback. |
2015 |
02/01 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
This is the way science should be done! I quickly got a rejection but the comments were really helpful. The criticisms were right and good suggestions for how to improve. |
2020 |
06/22 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Reviewer didn't understand the paper; maybe too qualitative for these folks |
2015 |
10/04 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
Worst decision of my career. Fucking crap. Idiotic review by someone who didn't bother to read the paper and doesn't understand science. This journal is bullshit. False advertising. It's a bunch of elitist pricks publishing their elitist friends' intellectual swill. |
2019 |
03/01 |
| Sociological Science |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
1 |
good turnaround, but useless comments. |
2015 |
08/12 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Similar to others. Desk rejected, short letter than seemed odd and disconnected from paper. Paper is now a revise and resubmit at a solid journal, so it's certainly publishable. |
2018 |
03/29 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
1 |
0 |
short desk reject. comments led us to believe editor did not look at paper. |
2015 |
03/09 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
I heard back from editor in about 1 week. He rejected it and provided some useful comments. Good experience overall. |
2015 |
08/13 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Short, not very helpful explanation from editor |
2019 |
07/01 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Desk rejected in about a week. A few sentences of generic comments. |
2016 |
02/17 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Sorensen responded in two weeks. Not sure he read the paper closely. Didn't offer anything constructive. The fast turnaround is nice though. |
2016 |
07/21 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
I have mixed feelings about this one. To be fair the paper wasn't all that great and I liked the quick response. On the other hand, we paid $100 and I'm pretty sure the editor just read the abstract- the editor said that several issues were not discussed in the paper that actually received a great deal of attention. Quite frankly, if you look at who is publishing here it seems like its mostly people and their friends and the elite upper levels of sociology. Honestly, I would probably avoid this journal even if I like the idea of it. |
2014 |
10/05 |
| Sociological Science |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject -- Editor didn't have any substantive critiques of the article. Just said that it was a poor fit for the journal. A couple other comments did make me think that perhaps he hadn't really read the manuscript, however. |
2017 |
11/13 |
| Sociological Spectrum |
Pending |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Editor required that I translate keywords into Vulcan. Also inquired whether I was in Who's Who and could decipher a riddle by Andy Abbott. Strange, but I still have high hopes |
2020 |
12/30 |
| Sociological Spectrum |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 months for a first response. Two rounds of r&r. Overall, a good experience. R&R with insightful, detailed comments. Would submit there again. |
2020 |
12/29 |
| Sociological Theory |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
Very good experience. Detailed comments from reviewers and excellent editorial work. |
2020 |
07/14 |
| Sociological Theory |
Accepted |
5 |
2 |
3 |
2 high quality reviews, one short and mostly unhelpful, they got a new reviewer for R&R round |
2018 |
09/02 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
Pretty quick turnaround. One reviewer was helpful, the other was an idiot (I think it was either KH or MB) |
2022 |
05/22 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
2 |
This was my first time submitting there and let's just say that I doubt I'll try again in the future. The referee reports were short, unhelpful, and basically cranky. Which is fine, but if the paper was not a great fit in the first place, why not just do a desk reject? |
2013 |
06/25 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewers were split. Gross sided with the negative reviewer. Both reviews were short and of some helpfulness. Not a bad experience, but not a great one either. |
2014 |
08/07 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Very helpful reports! 1 very positive and stimulating, the other one more critical but very detailed and encouraging. |
2019 |
03/24 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
6 |
4 |
2 |
After initial reviews editor said I can go down route A or route B. I chose A, then was rejected from not choosing B with little explanation. Rather disappointing. |
2015 |
10/26 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
One referee recommended accept, one called for major revisions (mostly involving adding consideration of additional background material), the third quite bad-temperedly rejected (though spent quarter of his review complaining about a couple of missing words in the abstract, and another quarter complaining that I'd occasionally used words that were insufficiently serious, one quarter muttering about an aside I'd made, and the remaining quarter on random complaints, without at all addressing the central claim of the piece or my arguments for it). They went with the last reviewer. It took them more than two weeks to make the final decision after they'd received the reviewer scores (according to the online system). I won't be submitting there again. |
2016 |
09/05 |
| Sociological Theory |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Disappointing. Editors side with the only negative review without even talking about two positive ones. This journal is a serious decline. |
2018 |
09/14 |
| Sociological Theory |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2013 |
05/09 |
| Sociology of Development |
Accepted |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Very helpful reviewer comments. The paper is substantially better. Good experience with editors. |
2018 |
08/26 |
| Sociology Of Education |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast review. 3 high quality reviews with major revisions that will help to improve the article. However, editor decided to reject after her own general assessment. |
2020 |
02/19 |
| Sociology Of Education |
Ref Reject |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
2 reviewers did not understand what regression models are! Was astonished by the level of irresponsibleness from the editorial board to send the paper to irrelevant people. 1 was from the field and recommended revising. But the editor rejected based on irrelevance with no comments from their side. |
2020 |
04/02 |
| Sociology Of Education |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
1 |
Got ONE (yes - A SOLE, SOLITARY, SINGLE) review after 5 months. Reviewer clearly was not an expert in the sub-field; didn't understand basic (extremely basic) terminology from the sub-field. Reviewer's comments were superficial. Should have been and R&R. Editor's response was unintelligible. Revised in a single day and sent to a different journal. Don't waste your time. |
2022 |
02/02 |
| Sociology Of Education |
Ref Reject |
1 |
N/A |
3 |
Fast as lightning |
2015 |
08/31 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Pending |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
2014 |
04/15 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
2014 |
08/14 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
The process was smooth and streamlined. Reviewers were thorough with suggestions that strengthened the paper. Would definitely submit again. |
2018 |
03/28 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Accepted |
4 |
1 |
3 |
The process was smooth and streamlined. Reviewers were thorough with suggestions that strengthened the paper. Would definitely submit again. |
2018 |
03/28 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Fast turn around. Not reasoning given. |
2019 |
12/28 |
| Sociology Of Health & Illness |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2020 |
08/31 |
| Sociology of Race and Ethnicity |
Accepted |
3 |
1 |
2 |
Great experience. Really useful reviewer comments and editor guidance. Very fast turnaround too. |
2017 |
04/24 |
| Sociology of Race and Ethnicity |
Accepted |
3 |
N/A |
3 |
Overall, a great experience. Very helpful reviews. Relatively quick decision. |
2017 |
04/23 |
| Sociology of Race and Ethnicity |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
I don't understand how it took 7 months to get reviews in. That being said, the comments were thorough and useful. |
2019 |
09/09 |
| Sociology of Race and Ethnicity |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
a bit slow in terms of the turnaround time, but the comments are decent and helpful. |
2018 |
11/17 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
4 |
R&R. Very quick turnaround for first decision. Four quality reviews. |
2015 |
07/21 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Very helpful and constructive feedback. rejection on christmas, wow thank you! Very helpful reviewer comments, great experience. not useful comments, but fast turn-around. It took two full years from submission to acceptance. Excellent experience, all around. |
2022 |
09/16 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
2010 |
12/23 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
4 |
Quick and easy process, very responsive editor, good reviews. Will definitely submit again. |
2015 |
10/15 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Accepted |
2 |
2 |
4 |
Reviews are really helpful and fast. Editors are efficient. Excellent experience. |
2017 |
07/19 |
| Sociology Of Religion |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
3 |
The reviewers were helpful even though they were wrong about a few things. Still, they carefully read the paper and the decision was made quickly |
2023 |
05/22 |
| Sociology Of Sport Journal |
Pending |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Positive feedback although not especially useful for developing the revised paper. Comments were mostly about clarifying method, adding citations, and adding other data (which is impossible). |
2015 |
07/20 |
| Sociology Of Sport Journal |
Accepted |
4 |
4 |
3 |
great experience! very good feedback! three times received R&R though but in the end I was totally satisfied. It was a great intellectual experience! |
2012 |
09/20 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Pending |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
|
2016 |
02/12 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Accepted |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Good experience. The many reviews (and rounds of reviews) ultimately made it a much better paper |
2012 |
03/28 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Accepted |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Very quick turnaround time, surprisingly. Constructive reviews, improved the manuscript. First decision reached us within 3 weeks only. |
2014 |
02/13 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Very good experience. Three detailed reviews and useful guidance from the editor. |
2019 |
07/07 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Very quick - 5 months from submission to acceptance. Thoughtful if difficult reviews. Only 1 round followed by acceptance. |
2016 |
05/08 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
|
2018 |
05/11 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
3 |
Relatively quick. Detailed reports. Editor rejected due to narrow appeal. |
2015 |
05/03 |
| Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological ... |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
Asked for more theoretical development; rejection letter said they take on around 15% of the papers submitted to the journal |
2018 |
01/31 |
| Symbolic Interaction |
Pending |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
I received the first reviews particularly fast (in less than 2 months) and they were very detailed and helpful. I am currently in the R&R period. I will definitely submit there again. |
2014 |
04/15 |
| Symbolic Interaction |
Accepted |
5 |
1 |
2 |
First response took a bit, but editor was prompt answering inquiries during that wait. Reviews were detailed and very helpful. Would definitely submit again. |
2016 |
06/18 |
| Symbolic Interaction |
Ref Reject |
4 |
N/A |
2 |
two of the referees were positive and made great comments for the development of the article but it was rejected by the editor. R&R can be considered. I reccomend because of the good feedback! |
2014 |
09/20 |
| Telos |
Accepted |
0 |
3 |
1 |
HYUCK HYUCK HYUCK HYUCK |
2018 |
09/05 |
| Telos |
Accepted |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2013 |
10/10 |
| Theory And Society |
Pending |
12 |
N/A |
1 |
Editors failed to confirm receipt or that they had sent the article for review. Took almost 12 months to hear back. One external reviewer, one member of the editorial board - neither from appropriate specialisms. I have since discovered Theory & Society has a notorious reputation for being so slow. I would not submit here again. |
2014 |
07/10 |
| Theory And Society |
Pending |
15 |
N/A |
0 |
Still waiting to hear something after 15 months. Probably going to withdraw it from consideration. |
2014 |
02/16 |
| Theory And Society |
Pending |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
Still waiting for initial response after 11 months. Like others, I would not recommend submitting here. |
2014 |
09/25 |
| Theory And Society |
Pending |
15 |
N/A |
0 |
Still waiting to hear after 15 months. |
2016 |
10/26 |
| Theory And Society |
Pending |
13 |
N/A |
0 |
At ten months, I e-mailed to inquire, and after dozens of e-mails from various people, they finally wrote back and claimed they would "have reviews within a month." Three months later, I inquired again, and after several weeks of no response, I retracted my article. I was very frustrated by the lack of communication and seeming lack of respect that the editors have for article authors. |
2016 |
02/28 |
| Theory And Society |
Accepted |
9 |
1 |
3 |
|
2019 |
02/17 |
| Theory And Society |
Accepted |
10 |
7 |
2 |
My paper received a conditional accept on the first round, with two incredibly short but positive and helpful referee reports and a third review from one of the Senior Editors. After sending in my revisions, it went to full acceptance in four months. |
2014 |
02/12 |
| Theory And Society |
Accepted |
8 |
1 |
3 |
Didn't even get a confirmation of receipt until the R&R. Editors are terrible at responding to questions, but the reviews were great. Clearly they did a good job finding appropriate reviewers. |
2013 |
10/24 |
| Theory And Society |
Accepted |
8 |
1 |
3 |
Very similar experience with previous commenter, though I found the editors to be more responsive via email than she/he did. The reviews were great, thorough, and ultimately helped the paper become better. Would recommend submitting to it. |
2013 |
01/02 |
| Theory And Society |
Accepted |
10 |
1 |
3 |
After one R&R they accepted the paper immediately without sending it back to reviewers. |
2017 |
08/05 |
| Theory And Society |
Ref Reject |
16 |
N/A |
3 |
Worst experience ever. Took them 16 months to come up with a result. More importantly, the editors did not respond to any emails until I brought up the possibility of filing a complaint with the ASA's Ethics committee. I strongly recommend that you stay away from this journal unless you have plenty of time and don't mind waiting for a long time. |
2016 |
11/02 |
| Theory And Society |
Ref Reject |
11 |
N/A |
2 |
The paper was considered not appropriate for the journal. Aside from a list of other journals and one minor issue I did not receive substantial feedback by the reviewers. |
2017 |
02/13 |
| Theory And Society |
Ref Reject |
22 |
N/A |
4 |
the longest review in my whole life! |
2014 |
02/12 |
| Theory And Society |
Desk Reject |
11 |
N/A |
0 |
They did not answer any of my emails. They would not even conform that they had even recieved my manuscript. |
2014 |
03/28 |
| Theory And Society |
Desk Reject |
15 |
N/A |
0 |
Contacted the editors after about seven months and they said they would have a decision to us within a month. Didn't hear anything back, so at one year post-submission I contacted them again. I received no response, so I sent a couple more e-mails over the next three months. Having heard nothing back, we finally decided to withdraw the manuscript at 15 months. We got an e-mail back saying they would have rejected the paper anyway and suggesting we consider submitting to journals that (in their words) required less of a contribution. They then proceeded to list (by name) well-regarded generalist and specialist journals that they felt fit that criteria. |
2015 |
12/14 |
| Theory And Society |
Desk Reject |
2 |
N/A |
0 |
2.5 months desk reject. Comment was short but to the point. I'd look at recent publications and see what the quality is to understand what is going on here. |
2021 |
05/02 |
| Theory And Society |
Desk Reject |
15 |
N/A |
0 |
Much like other posters here, unresponsive and unprofessional staff, and horrible experience altogether. |
2014 |
07/25 |
| Theory, Culture & Society |
Accepted |
4 |
2 |
5 |
I enjoyed the process, good reviews for the most part. Editorial board also gave solid input of their own. |
2018 |
12/20 |
| Work And Occupations |
Ref Reject |
5 |
N/A |
2 |
Absoluterly incompetent Chief Editor. It took 2 months to find referees. 3 months later received two reports by referees who clearly had no idea about the topic. One suggested theory is fine but empirics need more work, the other suggested that theory needs elaboration and empirics are great. Chief editor's decisicion was to reject with no further explanation. Not recommended. |
2022 |
06/22 |
| Work And Occupations |
Ref Reject |
7 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviewers' comments were detailed enough to be helpful, though the time to first response guarantees I will not submit here again. |
2015 |
05/09 |
| Work And Occupations |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
The article was sitting in their office for 5 months before being sent out. After it was finally sent out I received the decision in 3 months. Reviews were thorough and very useful. |
2013 |
05/09 |
| Work And Occupations |
Ref Reject |
2 |
N/A |
2 |
quick turn around. one helpful review. one extremely unhelpful one. |
2018 |
05/05 |
| Work And Occupations |
Ref Reject |
8 |
N/A |
2 |
Reviews were helpful, though not worth an eight-month wait. |
2015 |
04/09 |
| Work And Occupations |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Sort of an unprofessional rejection letter. Forced me to scroll through a list of reasons to see which one had "***" next to it. Surprised that they found it out of area, but at least it was mercifully quick. |
2015 |
01/03 |
| Work And Occupations |
Desk Reject |
10 |
N/A |
0 |
Online information said it was under review when it really was just sitting on the editors desk and never sent out. When inquiry was sent directly to editor after 10 months a rejection. Waste of time. |
2013 |
09/05 |
| Work And Occupations |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Received a form letter with a list of possible reasons for rejection, with one starred. They said it was out of journal scope despite being on a topic covered in many articles in this journal, which I even cited. Very confusing and makes me think they did not read it. Frustrating and unprofessional experience, I would probably not submit here again. |
2018 |
02/26 |
| Work And Occupations |
Desk Reject |
10 |
N/A |
0 |
Online information said it was under review when it really was just sitting on the editors desk and never sent out. When inquiry was sent directly to editor after 10 months a rejection. Waste of time. |
2013 |
09/05 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Accepted |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Overall very satisfactory experience. First round of reviews were tough but constructive and focused on meaning and data. After first revision the process was quite straightforward. |
2015 |
12/09 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Accepted |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Rocky first R&R (difficult comments) but smooth thereafter. Very helpful comments and quick turnaround at every stage. |
2015 |
05/03 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Ref Reject |
6 |
N/A |
3 |
Waited half a year for three one-paragraph comments. Wouldn't recommend. |
2015 |
09/08 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Desk Reject |
1 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk reject after two weeks. The editor was quite nice, and simply stated that the article seemed fit for a more organizational/IO-Psych. type of journal. I would disagree with the editor given what WEO has published recently. Nonetheless, the very fast turnaround means I would recommend submitting there! |
2018 |
06/27 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Desk Rejected after a week. The editor seemed interested in the paper, but said it was fit for a Journal in Labour Economics rather than a sociological one. Fast and nice |
2016 |
11/25 |
| Work Employment And Society |
Desk Reject |
0 |
N/A |
0 |
Quick decision, but justification for desk reject seemed to be a matter of taste |
2017 |
07/03 |