I've had papers rejected before, but these were the most absurd reviews I've ever gotten. Not to mention the fact that my paper was largely qualitative, and there were no
reviews from qualitative people. One recommended R&R in the review; the other presumably recommended a reject. I did a review for SF and recommended an R&R, but the paper was rejected. Previous editors have gotten in trouble because the accept rate was too high (my partner is a grad student at UNC); I think what most of us are seeing here is the fallout from that. So I won't review for them again, since it's a waste of time; they just want reasons to reject.


Rejected in 7 weeks with two decent reviews. The article was submitted at the beginning of Kalleberg's editorship.
*

Post R&R rejection.
Round 1: Took 3.5 months to get a major R&R. Two reviews. One was positive; the other was negative (but VERY vague in his/her criticisms and suggestions). The editor's comments had a positive tone; the specificity of his comments (e.g. how to present tables) led me to believe we had a good chance in the next round. We did everything we could to address the reviewers' and editor's concerns. Round 2: Took 2.5 months to get rejected. New editor in charge of the journal. A third reviewer wrote a hostile & unhelpful review, largely because he/she did not like our research questions. [20100726]



a paper rejected in less than 4 months. the editor's letter was short and had no points. very unhelpful.
the reviews were okay, but apparently from people outside the field.

I also had a paper that was given an R&R and then was rejected on the second round. The first round of reviews were constructive, but positive. The editor's letter was much more critical. I addressed everything, received three very positive reviews and one very critical review from the new reviewer. Editor rejected based on this fourth reviewer, as far as I could tell.

*

I currently have a paper under review at SF. I submitted the paper over 3 months ago and it has yet to be assigned to a reviewer! They have also refused my offers to suggest reviewers. It is quite frustrating.

*


Social Forces: The post R&R rejection.

Timely response with an R&R (major). Three main complaints (mostly about framing). Worked hard to address these head on.

Re-submitted May, rejected 4 months later. Reviews were actually more hostile on the second round, /after/ addressing their complaints. Editor had no comment.

At least one other student in my (ivy league) dept had a similar experience with this journal (rejected after /two/ rounds of revision).

My impression is that SF gives R&Rs to many more papers than they think will become publishable.

If the editor seems to have a hostile/sarcastic tone on the first round, I'd suggest looking elsewhere.

*

Turn-around time was 2 1/2 months. The paper was rejected but I had two helpful reviews.

Submitted in October 2008, got a reject in early February 2009. Really good reviews from two reviewers from the two relevant subfields of the paper.



Submitted mid-June and received a rejection in late-September, along with three very helpful reviews. The fact that the reviews were generally positive left me worried that the reviewers may have written (more critical) things in the letter to the editor that I didn't get to see. The editor's decision letter was very, very vague (i.e., didn't help me identify the "fatal flaw(s)" that precluded publication there).
SUMMARY:
Turn around time:3.5 months
Reviews: 3 very helpful
Editorial decision: unclear
The revised version of the paper is much improved because of the reviews we got from SF. Hopefully will land at "next stop" journal. Update pending.

*
Have heard from two people now (doing very different work) that paper was rejected before being sent out for review for being on topics not of interest to sociologists even though papers were very much on topic (and written by sociologists).

*

Turn-around time was 4 months. The reviews were mixed, but the editor's letter was overly harsh. I was advised to find a new area of research because my paper was "utterly unpublishable". Ouch!

*

Were the pre-review rejection experiences and the overly harsh decision from the current editor?
ANSWER: both the current one and the previous one
*

I submitted a manuscript in Oct. and SF website says that it is waiting editor's decision. It's March now...
*
I submitted a manuscript a couple of years ago and waited for at least 6 months until a rejection letter was sent by the editor.
But the reviews are pretty good.


I submitted an article for a special section. Got an R & R in 3 months, reviews were positive and helpful, though
major changes were required. I made those changes, the editor then asked for some more specific changes (which were
also pretty major), and the article was accepted. Total time: about 6 months. I am very grateful to the editor of the
special section as I really needed to get something published in a well-known soc journal.




4 month wait for a very un-helpful rejection. the editor's letter was especially critical without being specific.

*

1 month wait for a rejection without review. The editor said the paper too specialized for the journal. Subsequently
the article was accepted in another sociology journal.


*
The submission site claimed for at least a couple of months that my paper was under review. A few months after
submission, I got a brief email saying my paper was not "sociological". The editor told me he did an "in-house"
review (i.e. he eventually talked to co-editors about it) and decided not to send it out for review. Kind of
dissapointing to fork out the cash, wait three months, then have only 1 non descript reviewer comment. I can
live with my paper not being published in SF, but must one really wait 3 months in order to get a deflect?