Skeptical of this journal....
Guest
|
Post by Skeptical of this journal.... on Oct 19, 2015 14:27:02 GMT -5
Submitted there- got a desk reject in 5 days and they made $100. I don't think the editor read beyond the abstract. Other colleagues have had the same experience- give them $100 they will reject you within a few days.
I wouldn't submit here unless you know the editors.
|
|
Why did you pay $100?
Guest
|
Post by Why did you pay $100? on Oct 19, 2015 17:42:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by the soc sci debate on Oct 20, 2015 6:25:56 GMT -5
Submitted there- got a desk reject in 5 days and they made $100. I don't think the editor read beyond the abstract. Other colleagues have had the same experience- give them $100 they will reject you within a few days. I wouldn't submit here unless you know the editors. I understand why Soc Sci has appeal. Journals where reviewers object to the framing of the article, multiple R&Rs (with new reviewers), reviewers who don't know what they're talking about, and some astoundingly long wait times make us long for a corrective. But I think this is the problem...the traditional peer review structure has much more transparency. Reviewers are supposed to tell you why the article is problematic. Right now, it's the editors and their friends who read a paper and say "yep, this looks good" or "nope" and then it's over. No one has any idea why the paper was rejected, it just is. Was it because it wasn't done right? Because they didn't think it was important enough? (very subjective and could be biased by who submits) Because the framing didn't catch their attention? (oh, the irony!) At some point, the editorial team is going to have become more transparent with their process, because it's very dependent on having some big names buy in and act as arbiters. As mystifying as traditional peer review is, I at least have some sense of what the problems are with it and what to expect.
|
|
that's now how it works
Guest
|
Post by that's now how it works on Oct 20, 2015 11:15:05 GMT -5
Sounds like you haven't submitted there, and now you are spreading misinformation. They do tell you exactly why they're not accepting it. What they don't tell you is what you should do with the paper.
I am basing this off personal experience, but they say the same publicly:
If anyone has gotten a reject and has no idea why, that would be useful to share on this board.
|
|
|
Post by the soc sci debate on Oct 20, 2015 17:27:08 GMT -5
You're right, I haven't submitted there. I have just read what other people wrote and heard about other people's experiences. But I'll say it again...this journal is very dependent on the personalities involved. What is their system? No matter how many times they talk about on social media, I don't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by sorry..... on Oct 21, 2015 0:05:23 GMT -5
I checked with another one of the authors and it was $35. I didn't pay the fee- it came out of their pot.
Still, I'm just skeptical because I don't think the editor read past the abstract. I suppose that's okay, but that money goes somewhere. I know a few other journals do desk rejects and still charge a submission fee. Maybe that's part of my problem.
|
|
|
Post by blech on Oct 21, 2015 11:08:15 GMT -5
My experience with SocSci was not positive. They reviewed the manuscript and did so quickly and then rejected it. Fine. But the explanation of rejection was snide and condescending in tone. I know they want to disrupt the usual peer review system, but they can still be polite while doing so.
|
|
not trying to be me but....
Guest
|
Post by not trying to be me but.... on Oct 21, 2015 16:58:09 GMT -5
Sounds like you haven't submitted there, and now you are spreading misinformation. They do tell you exactly why they're not accepting it. What they don't tell you is what you should do with the paper. I am basing this off personal experience, but they say the same publicly: If anyone has gotten a reject and has no idea why, that would be useful to share on this board. They did tell us why they didn't accept it- the editor said we didn't discuss an issue that was discussed at length in the manuscript. We know "why" but the "why" doesn't make any sense. My guess is that they are trying to front-load the launch of the journal with big names or, at least, the students of big names. I'm a grad student and the other authors were somewhat known people in their sub-field but no one really famous. I think they should stop charging submission fees- just charge a publication fee. I'm pretty sure that's how PLOS does it. I know its a trivial amount of money but it makes me feel icky.
|
|
2023/4 experiences?
Guest
|
Post by 2023/4 experiences? on Jan 29, 2024 10:19:08 GMT -5
Anything to share since 2015?
|
|