Reviews for "Social Science and Medicine"

Journal title Average duration Review reports (1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Social Science and Medicine 14.6 wks 22.9 wks n/a 2 5 (excellent) 4 (very good) Accepted 2016
Social Science and Medicine 4.0 wks 8.4 wks n/a 2 3 (good) 5 (excellent) Accepted 2015
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2011
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2016
Social Science and Medicine 7.7 wks 13.7 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted 2014
Motivation: Overall the review process was very efficient and helpful. The editor also offered guidance on which were the most pressing points to address in the revision which was helpful.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Motivation: Quick decision, however the reason for rejection is still not clear to me; they stated that my paper was "primarily exploratory".
Social Science and Medicine 6.1 wks n/a n/a 3 4 (very good) 3 (good) Rejected 2016
Motivation: one reviewer was unnecerily harsh and rejected, two others were supportive
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 8.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2015
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 3.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 2.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: I feel the paper hasn't been judged but probably the editor did not like the topic or approach
Social Science and Medicine 5.0 wks 16.0 wks n/a 4 4 (very good) 3 (good) Accepted 2013
Motivation: The process started very well and quick. However, after the first round the remaining referee came up with questionable accusations of scientific dishonesty. I feel that the editor could have cut the process short after the first round of revisions. That would have saved 3 months of nonsense.
Social Science and Medicine 15.2 wks 21.2 wks n/a 3 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted 2013
Motivation: I was told by an editor that SSM has a very high rate of desk rejects (and I have been on the harsh end of this in the past), but as our piece was sent out I was very impressed by the efficiency of the process. Reviews were helpful and appropriate (although almost inevitably after 7 reviews some were starting to contradict each other). The paper was improved by the process and I will gladly publish with them again.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 42.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014
Motivation: After waiting for almost six weeks, I got a response from the editor that the paper had been rejected before external review, because the paper would be more appropriate for a public health journal. This reason still doesn't make much sense to me because I had always thought that public health was pone of the areas covered by Social Science and Medicine.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 12.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013
Social Science and Medicine 21.7 wks 46.4 wks n/a 2 4 (very good) 4 (very good) Accepted 2012
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 7.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 14.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2012
Motivation: The article was assigned to an editor, who stated that it was not of interest to the journal. The submitted paper was a mortality study based on workplace conditions, but the editor to which the article was assigned has only published in the field of post-colonial literature analysis. It was difficult to understand why that individual was an editor at this journal.
Social Science and Medicine n/a n/a 1.0 days n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2013