|Journal title||Average duration||Review reports (1st review rnd.)|
|(click to go to journal page)||1st rev. rnd||Tot. handling||Im. rejection||Number||Quality||Overall rating||Outcome|
|Sex Roles||19.3 wks||34.1 wks||n/a||3||5 (excellent)||5 (excellent)||Accepted|
|Motivation: I had to thoroughly revise, but do believe that the manuscript improved a lot through the review process. All in all, reviews were fair and useful. The first two review rounds could have been a bit faster in my opinion. I note that this took place during a change of editors for this journal.|
|Sex Roles||19.0 wks||19.0 wks||n/a||2||2 (moderate)||0 (very bad)||Drawn back|
|Motivation: The editor had apparently not even read the paper, and provided completely irrelevant feedback (for instance, she wanted us to address issues with using a sample of participants from outside of the US, when in fact the study was on media representations and did not include participant data at all). The reviews were also not attached to the decision letter. When I emailed for confirmation, the editor acknowledged the feedback was for a different paper (??), but said her critique was still valid (???!!). Decided just to submit to another journal rather than deal with with the bizarre requests made by the editor. Several weeks after the correspondence with the editor, we received the actual reviews, which were actually positive.|
|Sex Roles||n/a||n/a||2.0 days||n/a||n/a||n/a||Rejected (im.)|
|Sex Roles||13.0 wks||13.0 wks||n/a||2||3 (good)||2 (moderate)||Rejected|
|Motivation: While the replies of the editor and reviewers were swift, the process could hardly be called standard policy. For instance, before the manuscript was sent out to any reviewers, the editor already requested adjustments.
We also had the distinct impression that the editor tried to change the tone and content of the article into something completely different (e.g. from a review article into an research article!), and then rejected the article when this turned out to be impossible.