European Journal of Population. My paper was under review for over a year before I received the first round of reviews, got an R&R which I had revisions turned back in within a month, took another ~8 months. Then after recommended for publication by the reviewers, had more than one round of R&R--NOT conditional accept--based on minor editorial team comments. On top of that, many of the recommended editorial requirements changed the meanings of sentences in ways that were no longer factually correct.
Worst edited journals?
-
As a reviewer, I really resent Social Science Research, which does not even bother sending reviewers copies of the decision email. Comparing my take to those of the other reviewers is one of the scant rewards of reviewing, and not getting even that just demotivates me to do a thorough review.
This is not true. I have received the other regerees' reports from SSR several times.
-
Social Science Quarterly. Review takes a freaking year and they refuse to answer emails.
Oh man, yeah this thing is kind of a train wreck. Their standards seem low and they never respond to email. I had an article accepted there and they never forwarded it to the publisher. It was almost a year before I got proof pages after acceptance.
-
I'm the guy who originally kvetched about SSR. The fact is, in the past 2 years, I have reviewed multiple manuscripts for SSR and I have never gotten a decision email. And their submission system does not let me view decision emails or other reviewers' comments.
-
I also had a recent terrible experience at L&SR. One reviewer started with "I don't understand anything about statistics" and then spent the entire review commenting incorrectly on statistics. The paper was rejected based on their incoherent ramblings per the decision letter. It took about five months too. No thanks.
Editors are also refusing to actually make decisions, and instead subjecting papers to multiple R&Rs even on minor issues. It is as if they've abdicated their role to reviewers (who undoubtedly do not want it). Hugely frustrating for authors since it strings the decision process out forever, and for reviewers who are asked to review multiple drafts even if they've recommended publication. I suspect they'll have a hard time getting reviewers over time.
-
I've had the same experience as dc41 when it comes to SSR. On top of this rubbish, it bugs me that when the new editor came in they switched from single-blind reviews to double-blind reviews and never announced the change or made it clear on their site for authors considering submission. Lazy editor.
-
Can anyone confirm?
European Journal of Population. My paper was under review for over a year before I received the first round of reviews, got an R&R which I had revisions turned back in within a month, took another ~8 months. Then after recommended for publication by the reviewers, had more than one round of R&R--NOT conditional accept--based on minor editorial team comments. On top of that, many of the recommended editorial requirements changed the meanings of sentences in ways that were no longer factually correct.
-
International Migration Review gives 6 MONTHS to the reviewers to write their assessment. Then at least 3 WEEKS to the editor to make a decision. It is a very slow journal. Folks close to submit tenure paperwork or to apply for jobs, this is not the journal for you.
-
International Migration Review gives 6 MONTHS to the reviewers to write their assessment. Then at least 3 WEEKS to the editor to make a decision. It is a very slow journal. Folks close to submit tenure paperwork or to apply for jobs, this is not the journal for you.
Are you freaking kidding? Didn't know this...
-
I'm the guy who originally kvetched about SSR. The fact is, in the past 2 years, I have reviewed multiple manuscripts for SSR and I have never gotten a decision email. And their submission system does not let me view decision emails or other reviewers' comments.
Weird. I have reviewed for SSR several times over the last years and always received decision letter and reviewer reports. Maybe they ignore your reports?