EJS Cudos Page


My experience with EJS has been astounding. The online format of the journal made it possible to review my manuscript on a timetable that conventional journals will never be able to match. Anyone with an outstanding manuscript that has been delayed unnecessarily by the paleolithic review process at a conventional journal should seriously consider the EJS.

Timothy McGettigan

This has been the least painful publication experience I’ve ever had and am recommending EJS highly and often.

Linda Mooney

I do appreciate the editorial comments provided by you and the reviewers, they are helpful and appropriate, something that I’ve not found with some other journals. For example, I submitted a manuscript to a journal that will remain anonymous (it is one of the journals associated with the American Sociological Association). They had the manuscript for a year and then told me that it was not sociological enough. It was on institutionalism and I’m afraid I differ on that call. Or someone needs to tell Perrow, Selznick, DeMaggio, etc., that they have been writing theory and conducting research that is not sociological. It has been several years and I’m still irritated. Needless to say, I had to significantly rewrite the piece for placement in a higher education journal, reducing the sociological content and emphasis on theory development. It was published by The Review of Higher Education, one of the leading journals in its field.

Gordon Gates

It was really a pleasure communicating with you.  I am sure that the establishment of the EJS was a revolutionary step in our academic “business.” You may certainly see yourselves as “heroic pioneers.” I am  also convinced (and hope) that in few years most academic journals will be virtual. It is so much more effective, democratic and useful.

Oz Almog

The review that you sent to me was extremely helpful in a nuts-and-bolts way, but more importantly in a moral-boosting way. I’ve returned the paper to it’s original tone and intent, and added more substantial documentation of my points. I hope that you and the reviewers find this version more appropriate for publication in the EJS.

Dave Locher