Jurassic World: Dominion Dominates Fandom Wikis - The Loop
Do you like this video?
- submitted via email and in a couple of months received per post a rejection letter from the editor with one page-long review from an anonymous reader, the review advised rejection and it somewhat helped me edit the article. It was later accepted at a different journal
- submitted via the portal where the article lingered for two entire years and the portal continuously stated that the article was under review. Finally I decided to write the editor (which I clearly should have done far sooner) who claimed that I should have received a rejection long ago (which I didn't -- and I even still have automated emails from the submission portal on my email server). The review I received was hostile and superficial. Superficial in the sense that the reviewer made a number of claims about my article that weren't argued for or substantiated in other ways, nor did they refer to specific passages of my article. Hostile in the sense that the reviewer rejected the premise of the article out of hand: topic x in these specific works of author y is not a relevant topic (this too, remained a claim, obviously). Funnily enough, I have already published quite extensively on topic x in author y (in similar size journals, at least going by H-Index or other indicators on Scopus), so this rejection came as quite a surprise. Anyway, I'm confident this article will be published elsewhere. Won't submit to this journal again.
- submitted twice to this journal via email and had all communication via email. The editorial team work really well, both my submissions received proper attention. Both times the editor sent the essay out to two anonymous readers. My first submission was accepted, my second one was rejected. First essay: two reviews arrived three months after submission (one reviewer was taking time, otherwise they would have contacted me after two months; the editor let me know they were waiting for this second review). Both reviews were really cool and very helpful. They included two page-long criticisms and two copies of my essay with track changes from the reviewers; it was really great to see all the criticism and what had to be done. resubmitted after a month of editing; the journal accepted the revised document about two months later. The article was published in about a year after acceptance. The process was educational for me and I really enjoyed it. The second time I submitted, I again received attention from two anonymous peers. This time the reviews were negative, no documents with track changes for this reason, I think. The comments were all fair. The editor rejected my second submission outright, that was quite fair, too. I really appreciate the fact they send out the essays to two reviewers and get back to you relatively soon. With my accepted essay, the copy-editing process was also good, I remember they took care to enter all the references the right way, asking me to check the list of cited works.
- submitted an article which was accepted. the two reviews were timely (about 3 months after submission) and closely engaged with my argument + received my article with track changes & comments for further in-text feedback. the editing and proofreading are of the highest standards i have yet experienced. the duration from submission to publication was about a year.
- I submitted here once via email and my essay was accepted. The editor sent my essay to one anonymous reader, the response came a bit under four months later. The reader was very critical of my approach and wrote a scathing review of the essay, but there were also concrete comments what to improve. And the editor allowed me to resubmit and highlighted those things that had to be changed. I took six months to come back to the text and edit it to resubmit. The essay was accepted a few days after resubmission. It will be published two years after the acceptance. The editor Hans Adler responded swiftly/immediately via email to anything that needed a reply during the review process.
- Ditto--this editor is one in a million.
- The editor was very unresponsive to emails. I even tried the editorial assistant to no avail. My piece was ultimately rejected with only a summary of the reviewer's remarks. It was accepted at another journal without making any changes from the reviewer at Monatshefte.
- submitted once and received a sentence-long rejection from one of the editors after waiting for three months; the editor apologized for the wait; the essay was later accepted at another journal
- had a request to revise the essay in about three and a half months after submission; the review was very positive and the comments required substantial changes (they gave general comments and the annotated text of the essay); after heavy revision it was accepted for publication about 5 days after resubmission; it will be published about a year after the initial submission and in about 6 months after being accepted for publication; it was a lot of work, but the effort was worth it and they are publishing it soon
- submitted an article which was accepted with minor revisions after three months. The response by the reviewer (I think there was only one) was very positive and overall helped me tighten the theoretical framework and create a more lucid structure. A few of the requested changes were somewhat strange but very minor (so easily implemented but also difficult to see why they should be made in the first place). The editor was highly positive. The proofeditor was clearly a full academic in his own right and checked every bit of the article in very minute detail and we exchanged a few emails addressing any queries. From submission to publication it took just about 6 months. The experience was highly positive and I will definitely be submitting again.
- submitted to this journal and got a one-paragraph rejection message from the editor David Wellbery 20 days later; the rejection offered no helpful comments and said the approach was controversial and produced trivial results (the editor criticized the theory I was using, and only then my essay); it is important to check what kind of articles they publish before submitting
- received a firm acceptance about two weeks after submission; the editor gave advice how to eliminate any repetition and suggested other useful minor changes in his written comments sent to me as an annotated manuscript by post; the essay will now be published a year after its acceptance
- after three months i received a desk rejection by the editor (Jim Reed) who took issue with the topics of the novel I was examining (gender, disgust, rape, violence) on the basis of 'taste', rather than any particulars of my argument or analysis (which the editor admitted seemed 'sophisticated'). for the future, i'll steer clear of the journal's blinkeredness and its antiquated notions of 'good taste'. certainly, taking 3 months for a desk rejection should raise questions of the journal's ethical standards (even independently of its presumptions of good taste).
- I think this journal like New German Critique does not really do blind peer review. Upholding the old boys' club...
- submitted to this journal and was accepted with minor revisions after 4 months. It was published 14 months after submission. The editor was prompt and responsible, and the experience was overall positive.
- During editorial change, my paper sat on the desk/in the inbox for 6 months before getting editorially rejected. This journal tends to go for more theoretical articles and less cultural studies.
- Submission went out for peer review, reports came back in the timeframe the editor promised. Two reviewers, one of whom was critical but positive, the other, while helpful, seemed determined to sink the article. Article was rejected, but comments from both were helpful.
- Very timely reviews (within 5-6 months). Rejected twice before but finally got accepted on the third try!
New German Critique, , , Colloquia Germanica,